[Advaita-l] Women and Paramahamsa sannyasa

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*



On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 17:56, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> > Because, they are not in possession of karma. By karma I mean vaidika
> karma
> > here.
> >
>
> A married woman is a part of almost every vaidika karma the husband does.
>

A supporting cause is not the doer.


> The sAyaNa bhAShya for the above quoted shruti gives meanings for each:
> karma, prajA and dhanam in terms of vaidika karma and says in conclusion:
> किं तर्हि? कर्मप्रजाधनादीनां लौकिकवैदिकव्यापाराणां त्यागेनैके
> केचिदेवान्तर्मुखा अमृतत्वमानशुः प्राप्नुवन्ति । From this it is clear that
> what is thought of as kAmya is not outside the gamut of vaidika viShaya.
>

व्यापारस्य प्राप्तावेव त्यागस्य वार्त्तोपपद्यते , नान्यथा - इत्युक्तमेव
प्राक् ।

Veda VyAsa would not be presenting someone who is outside the norms of
> vaidika-s and of questionable credentials (by taking to danDadhAraNA type
> of sannyasa) to determine the conduct of a King who has considered himself
> to be a mukta.
>

I already said that they are stories, and they have no base in actual
world. You can't make vidhi-s because you heard some story.


> In this Ishwara-managed scheme
> we cannot say that someone selected for a chosen role of authority is not
> within the varNAshrama-compliant mode.
>

Q: How to decide that someone is being handled by God and not disrespect
towards scriptures ?
A: Because he can talk about brahma.
Q: It doesn't hold good. Many deceivers are seen teaching various
philosophies.


>  In that commentary to the Mahabharatha, nIlakanTha has given some details
> about the 'bhikShukI'.  That he has not cited any smRti authority for his
> comments does not let us conclude that there is no such authority.  Only
> that we do not know what it is.
>

Not only that. I know that tridaNDa-dhAraNa is not prescribed for women.
So, for me your faith is not enough. Your faith may work for you and
nIlakaNTha, but to persuade someone else you need to propound in a
different way. Otherwise giving benefit of doubt will make Osho, etc.
vaidika.

 The Veda-vyAsa mentioned case does not raise such doubts.  For he is
> reliable in matters regarding varna-Ashrama vyavasthA proven by the
> extensive discussion on such matters found in the mahAbhArata.
>

Then remember that bhIShma is telling a story, an akhyAyikA and not
translating a real experience.
Or,
veda-vyAsa mentioned buddha, chArvAka, etc. also. So are they also
followers of vaidika-rules and nyAya-s of mImAMsA on account of being
mentioned by him ?