You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Aug 2004

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00055 Aug 2004

 
Aug 2004 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA

Respected Sri Sudharshan swami,
The outrage expressed by you in your reaction to `mother is barren' 
is absolutely right and logically tenable. This is one  more reminder 
of how we have lost the sap but clung to the shell. Without going 
into the sustainability of the statement in the context quoted, 
fearing the eruption of another controversy (for which I seem to have 
a penchant) let me express what immediately strikes my mind. I write 
the following in the hope that you, as one whose ability to look 
beyond what actually strikes the eye which is well demonstrated in 
your writings, would be willing to know (or had already known) how 
statements such as these have actually been used in arguments. 

 `My mother is barren' is one of the pet premises that Bhagavad 
Ramanuja takes up often along with `Devadatta is this or that' 
assumptions whenever he gets down to deeper explorations into 
grammatical equations between words in order to take the versions of 
purvapakshins to task. For instance, in order to establish that the 
concept of Jeevan mukhthi is untenable, he says it is self-
contradictory like `my mother is barren'. If you say that your mother 
is barren, that is un-sustainable  because she as one who has given 
birth to you can not be barren. Similarly if you say that you can get 
Release while you are in your body, it is un-sustainable and self-
contradictory, for the very fact that you are still inside the body 
shows that you are embodied and embodiment and Release (as happens in 
Jeevan mukhthi) can not co-exist.

Coming to the context that provoked your noble self, the right way to 
interpret that would be to apply the logic that Ramanuja followed to 
arrive at the implication of `That thou art'. He has dedicated 
considerable space and explanation on how to arrive at the actual 
import of  words that signify more than one attribute, by means of 
grammatical equation.  His theory is that whenever any two different 
attributes are mentioned  which are not capable of being consistently 
applied to the one and the same thing, it has to be accepted that one 
of the two words can not have the main and natural significance and 
that  both the words have to be applied.  For instance in the 
sentence, `the man of vAhika ( vAhika is to be interpreted as a 
person who is outside the vedic religion) country is a `go'', the 
word `go' actually means ox. But here the quality of the ox comes to 
be attributed to the man. Whenever the special attributes are 
mentioned, the thumb rule is to read its meaning in the context of 
the main attribute of the subject.

In the term that invited your outrage, Sir, the main idea that she is 
a mother in indestructible. It therefore calls for linking the other 
attribute(s) to the main idea. That she is a mother can not be 
disputed irrespective of  whether she is the mother to one child or 
many children. So the motherhood is not under scrutiny here. Since 
she is a mother, she can not be called as barren is another fact that 
can not be disputed. It therefore comes to centre around how many 
children she has. Since motherhood and unbarren-ness are indisputable 
facts, the emphasis lies on begetting many children. At the same time 
the absence of more than one child does not go against the first two 
indestructible facts. What is deduced in the statement is `abundance' 
in the number of children.

This is understandable in a society that placed importance 
on `growth' in all spheres. As one who is well versed in taittriya 
upanishad, you know for yourself how the emphasis is on `annam'. The 
very first level explanation given to a beginner- learner of this 
Upanishad is that one must grow more food and  feed more people. That 
was the beginning of an agrarian society. At a spiritual level, 
begetting more sathputraa; means gifting the world with more learned 
beings who would serve the world in different ways. This is 
comparable to the  many  noble services that man is expected to do 
for the sake of loka-kshemam. What immediately comes to my mind is 
the vachan in Mahabharatha which says that by planting a 100 trees, a 
man gets the benefits of having begotten 10 sathputra; Should we then 
conclude that it is better to plant 90 trees and beget one 
sathputhran to get that punya  or plant 1000 trees to get the punya 
of having given birth to 100 children. Did Gandhari be called a 
punyavathi for having got 100 children? The emphasis in the above 
vachan is clearly on promoting tree plantation and conservation.

Similarly, the emphasis in the  barren women vachan is not on just 
giving birth to one child or two children, but on giving birth to as 
many children who prove to be noble persons. In your case, Sri 
Sudharshan swami, you have proved to be equivalent of 10 sathputhra; 
or even more by your noble service for the cause of Sanatana dharma. 
That is why your beloved and reverential mother had with foresight 
remained content with just one child. My prostrations on her feet!!

Regards.


--- In SriRangaSri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sadagopaniyengar 
<sadagopaniyengar@xxxx> wrote:
> dear shri sudarshan,
> Sri Alavandar's argument appears to have been meant to score over 
the
> conceited and arrogant AkkiyAzhwan, challenging him to refute 
apparently
> irrefutable propositions, and not to seriously term every mother 
with a
> single son as barren.   the next argument, about no woman being a 
pativrata,
> should also be taken in the same spirit.
> regards, dasan, sadagopan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: sudarshan madabushi <mksudarshan2002@xxxx>
> To: Hema Narayana <hemanarayana@xxxx>; Narendiran Krishnan
> <knaren73@xxxx>
> Cc: <tatachar@xxxx>; <sadagopaniyengar@xxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 2:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [SriRangaSri] Re: Barren Mothers
> 
> 
> >
> > Dear Madam,
> >
> > Thank you for quoting the scriptures to establish that
> > my beloved mother is a "barren woman".
> >
> > Going by what you have said, I suppose Kausalya the
> > mother of Rama too is a "barren woman". Totamba, the
> > mother of Swami Vedanta Desikan too qualifies as a
> > "barren woman".
> >
> > Although I would never ever belong in the exalted
> > company of Sri Rama or Sri Desikan, I can at least say
> > that my own late, beloved "thAyyAr" -- a noble
> > SriVaishnavite lady who underwent "bharannyAsam" under
> > the present "azhagiya-singar" and who is hence now a
> > "vaikunta-vAsi" for sure -- she must be in good
> > company there amongst other eminently "barren women"
> > such as TotAmba.
> >
> > Many thanks for your enlightening explanation.
> > Rgds,
> >
> > dAsan,
> > Sudarshan
> >
> >
> >  --- Hema Narayana <hemanarayana@xxxx> wrote:
> > > Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya namaha
> > > Pranams
> > >
> > > In response to the mail written by Sri.Sree Krishna
> > > Tatachar , I would like to give the explanation from
> > > the article that appeared in Sri Ranganatha Paduka a
> > > year ago about Sri.Yamuna's Statements.
> > > " According to sastras the crow and the banana tree
> > > are  barren, because they beget just a
> > > single offspring . while the crow gives birth to
> > > only a single baby crow through a single egg. like
> > > wise each banana tree yields just a single bunch of
> > > bananas. By this standard , since you too are
> > > mother's only  son,  your mother can very well be
> > > termed barren
> > > this is an extract from an article "A Debate with a
> > > difference " by Sri Sadagopan Iyengar, Coimbatore ,
> > > Sri Ranganatha Paduka.
> > >
> > > Adiyal
> > > Hema Narayana
> >
> >
> >
> > 
______________________________________________________________________
__
> > Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online
> > Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/VkWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SriRangaSri/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    SriRangaSri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list