[Advaita-l] Women and Paramahamsa sannyasa

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

I thank you for providing this information with links to original text. You
must have worked hard to type those verses. Thank you, again.
*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*



2012/3/16 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>


> In the cited Mahabharatha verses there is one verse which informs us that
> sulabhA was carrying the tridanDa (which she had temporarily laid away
> during the conversation with Janaka):
>
> छत्रादिषु विमुक्तस्य *मुक्तायाश्च त्रिदण्डके*॥ 12-320-19
>
>
> Though the practice of women taking up the paramahamsa sannyasa (with
> tridanDa) is not encountered today,


A wrong conception. That type of saMnyAsa which is marked by tridaNDa is
not called paramahaMsa-saMnyAsa at all. paramahaMsa saMnyAsa is marked by
either eka-daNDa or lack of daNDa.


> there is evidence in the smRti for such
> a practice having been in  vogue.


Without having vidhi-vAkyA-s to support saMnyAsa of women, it is not
correct to say that they are allowed by veda-s to do so. Any story which
has no base in vaidika-dharma-shAstra-s or is opposed to nyAya-s of
pUrva-mImAMsA is not acceptable.
Q: Is there any basis for saying that women can't take this saMnyAsa, which
is marked by tridaNDa and bhixA, etc. ?
A: Yes. saMnyAsa is meant mainly to shun karma-s and their tools, i.e.
shikhA, yaGYopavIta, etc. When there is no adhikAra of women in
karma(according to pUrva-mImAMsA and the popular belief), there can be no
talk of shunning karma. प्रसक्त एव निषिध्यते ।
Q: Do you mean that sulabhA was not a bhikshukI ?
A: No. I'm just saying that if she really did it, she was definitely not
doing it according to veda-s. She may be following any other path.
Q: How could you say that ? She is mentioned in an itihAsa, so she was
definitely a vaidika-saMnyAsinI.
A: No. As there is no rule that only people following veda-s are mentioned
in itihAsa, etc. If this is so, buddha, chArvAka, tAntrika, etc. will
become vaidika.

And please note that the commentary is not showing any scriptural proof to
support it's view. It is just doing a sort of imagination.