[Advaita-l] About Satyakama

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Venkatesh Murthy (वेङ्कटेशः
>
> The important question is Jabala was following the ancient custom or
> the marriage system of Eka Pati Vrata? If she was following Eka Pati
> Vrata it will be very strange because she is not remembering even her
> husband. If she had only one husband she could have told 'I do not
> know your Gotra but you are son of Rishi X'.But she is not saying

that to Satyakama. We can see also there is not a huge passage of time
> because Satyakama is still a boy. She cannot say because of huge
> passage of time I do not remember anything.
>
> Therefore we have to say Jabala was not following Eka Pati Vrata and
> she was following the ancient custom of no marriage. She lived with
> many Rishis and one of them was father of Satykama but she did not
> remember which Rishi.
>


There is no basis for all this in the Upanishad.  There is no reason to
construct that the boy's father was a Rishi. Secondly, nowhere does the
mother say that she does not know the father of the boy.  All that is
available in the mantra is that when asked about the gotra (not about the
father), she says she does not know 'that'.  There is no reason to
speculate that she did not know who fathered the boy.

४,४.२ Mantra:

सा हैनमुवाच ।
*नाहमेतद्वेद तात यद्गोत्रस्त्वमसि ।*
बह्वहं चरन्ती परिचारिणी यौवने त्वामलभे ।
*साहमेतन्न वेद यद्गोत्रस्त्वमसि ।*
जबाला तु नामाहमस्मि ।
सत्यकामो नाम त्वमसि ।
स सत्यकाम एव जाबालो ब्रुवीथा इति ॥ ४,४.२ ॥

__________

भाष्य ४,४.२ एवं पृष्टा जबाला सा हैनं पुत्रमुवाच*नाहमेतत्तव गोत्रं वेद हे
तात*
*यद्गोत्रस्त्वमसि ।*
कस्मान्न वेत्सीत्युक्ताऽहबहु भर्तृगृहे परिचर्याजातमतिथ्यभ्यागतादि चरन्त्यहं
परिचारिणी परिचरन्तीति परिचरणशीलैवाहं परिचरणचित्ततया *गोत्रादिस्मरणे मम मनो*
*नाभूत् ।*
यौवने च तत्काले त्वामलभे लब्धवत्यस्मि ।
तदैव ते पितोपरतः ।
अतोऽनाथाहं साहमेतन्न वेद यद्गोत्रस्त्वमसि ।
जबाला तु नामाहमस्मि सत्यकामो नाम त्वमसि स त्वं सत्यकाम एवाहं
जाबालोऽस्मीत्याचार्याय ब्रुवीथाः यद्याचार्येण पृष्ट इत्यभिप्रायः ॥२ ॥



> > The BG itself in the first chapter talks about what evil effects will
> come
> > about when women become fallen.
>
> I think the Mahabharata story is saying women are not sinful in matter
> of choosing and living with any husband because they follow natural
> instincts like birds and animals. Like animals cannot be sinful women
> also cannot be sinful in this matter.


How can we conclude so? We have the famous subhashita:

आहारनिद्राभयमैथुनं च सामान्यमेतत्पशुभिर्नराणाम् ।
धर्मो हि तेषामधिको विशेषः धर्मेण हीनाः पशुभिस्समानाः ॥ which holds for all
times.

VS