[Advaita-l] Taittiriya Upanishad question

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms 
Hare Krishna


Kashyapa was a prajapati and it is his dharma to satisfy his 
sahadharmacharini. 

>  Kindly pardon me, I dont agree with this..it is NOT gruhastha's dharma 
to satisfy the illigitimate wish of his sahadharmiNi. kashyapa prajApati 
was a jnAni and he knew the repercussions of his wife's untimely demand, 
that is the reason why he tried to educate his wife but in vain & finally 
helped her !! 

If one's sahadharmacharini is in need of such thing, it is the dharma of 
the
grihastha to cooperate.  Even such an act is a yajna which is described in 
sruti.

> IMO, this is really very strange observation!!  you mean to say here 
even though sahadharmiNi's wish is dharma bAhira, shAstra viruddha, an 
ideal gruhasta has to oblige it thinking that it is also a yajna ??!!  For 
instance, if wife asks her husband to murder someone for want of money, do 
you think it is the duty of her husband to fulfil his wife's demand?? Dont 
think it is vittanda vAda, I think the demand of diti is nothing better 
than this. 
 
One should not unnecessarily criticise Kashyapa Prajapati  whose dharma 
pravritti is different altogether. 

>  Again pls. dont think I am criticizing or doubting the credentials of 
kashyapa prajApati.  I am just questioning the rationality behind bringing 
this  episode to prove jnAni's maithunecche and rAga-dvesha due to 
prArabdha!!  As said earlier, I always have the gut feeling that these 
purANic episodes do convey some esoteric adhyAtmic meaning which would be 
in line with shruti siddhAnta and literal interpretation of these episodes 
to prove someone's pet theory would definitely lead to controversies & 
more confusions and defame these characters as well. 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar