headers
Srikanta Narayanaswami | 3 Jun 2012 15:20
Picon
Favicon

Re: Books on Bhagawatham.

Pranams,Sri.Sarmaji.
 
I am sorry i was not able to bring my points across.What I was saying is that there are certain instances in the
Ramayana which we as earthly beings cannot understand.The episodes in the Valmiki Ramayana regarding
Hanuman visit to the harem of Ravana is well recorded and is in details.At present I am not able to quote the
specific verses regarding this.
Sage Valmiki was a poet,and such descriptions by a poet is justified,from the point of view of "Alankara".
 
 
 
 
 
There is also a verse,where Sita rebukes Rama as a person in the garb of a Woman!Now, can we say that Sita ,an
eptitome of "Pathivratha Dharma"can make such a insulting statement to Rama,who is "Maryada
Purushottama".Sita,was also a human being,and her statement has to be seen as a one coming out of a
woman,who is also human,though an avatar of Lakshmi Devi,the consort of Vishnu.Sita,being a woman was
infatuated by the desire of possessing the "Golden Deer",the "Maya mrga"though Lakshmana knew that it
was a "Maya mrga".But,Sita used unbecoming words to insult Lakshmana,and even suspected,Lakshmana's
integrity!Now,can we take exception to these episodes?
N.Srikanta.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
rajaramvenk | 3 Jun 2012 15:31
Picon

Re: Books on Bhagawatham.

I think it is important to understand our itihasas and puranas through realised souls and/or through the
traditions. It seems Vellukkudi is now lecturing on Ramayana. In an offline conversation with Sri
Subrahmanian, he mention Sri Anantarama Dikshitar has given lectures on Ramayana and will share details
on how to get them. It may be useful.

Uddhava Gita in Bhagavatam is popularly seen as a lecture on Advaitam. In Sarartha Varshini, Visvanatha
gives a bhakti spin to it. The words and constructs are different in his view.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: Srikanta Narayanaswami <srikanta.narayanaswami@...>
Sender: advaita-l-bounces@...
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 06:20:27 
To: <advaita-l@...>
Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
	<advaita-l@...>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Books on Bhagawatham.

Pranams,Sri.Sarmaji.
 
I am sorry i was not able to bring my points across.What I was saying is that there are certain instances in the
Ramayana which we as earthly beings cannot understand.The episodes in the Valmiki Ramayana regarding
Hanuman visit to the harem of Ravana is well recorded and is in details.At present I am not able to quote the
specific verses regarding this.
Sage Valmiki was a poet,and such descriptions by a poet is justified,from the point of view of "Alankara".
 
 
 
 
 
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Srikanta Narayanaswami | 3 Jun 2012 15:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: Books on Bhagawatham.

It is wrong to think that eroticism is unholy or atrocious. Within the standard
parameters of Indian literary and other artistic conventions, eroticism is not
something to be abhorred always. In fact, SRngAra is often said to be the
king of rasa-s in traditional Indian discussions of aesthetics. It is a sign of
the continuing colonization of the Indian mind that many amongst us cringe
at the very mention of SringAra. We have to stop alienating ourselves from
our own culture. 
__________________________________________________________________________________
Pranams.Well said Vidyashankarji.It is very much true that the continuous colonisation of the Indian
mind that many amongst us cringe at the very mention of Sringara.Sringara rasa is also included in the
Bharatha natya sastra.It would be sheer hyprocrisy if we say that we donot entertain the shringara rasa.
Recently,I had a chance to go on a piligrimage to Orissa.I visited Puri,Konark and Bhuvaneshwar which has
the famous Lingaraj temple.In all these temples,erotic sculptures
are not only carved,but,also in solid form.I asked a Panda about the sculptures.He said,"Ee Shraman
hai"By his explanation,I could understand that when Buddhism was spreading in these places,many youth
abandoned homes and family life and becames "Sramans"In order to discourage the youth from turning to ascetism
,these sculptures were carved.Also,Tantric rituals were practiced in these temples.It was
Ramanujacharya in the 12th century who tried to introduce "Pancharatra"mode of worship.But,he could
not succed.Even now,the "Vaikhanasa'and Tantirc mode of worship is followed,without the "mithuna" and
"madhya"offering to the devotees.Instead of "madhya"devotees are given tender coconut water.The
"Devadasi"natya was also abolished 
years before.
N.Srikanta.
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Venkatesh Murthy | 3 Jun 2012 18:39
Picon

Purusha and Stree

Namaste

I heard in one Pravachana by KS Narayanacharya he is saying we all are
Strees only and Krishna is the only Purusha. We may be men but like
women we are dependent on Him. Anybody dependent on another is Stree.
Stree will always depend on Father in childhood, Husband in youth and
Son in old age. Like this the men are always dependent on Vishnu. He
is the Purusha. The men are all Strees only. They are men in name
only.

But in the Purusha Sukta there is a mantra 'Purusha EvedaGm Sarvam |
yad Bhutam Yac Ca Bhavyam | '. 'Everything is Purusha That which was
and That which is to be is Purusha'.

If everything is Purusha there is No Stree at all.

Which position is correct according to Advaita?

--

-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh
Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Rajaram Venkataramani | 3 Jun 2012 18:41
Picon

Re: Books on Bhagawatham.

There was an opinion by Sri Sunil that Bhagavatham, Ramayana etc. needs no
commentary. I gave the argument in favour of why commentary is required by
quoting a verse from Ramayana that could be very wrongly misinterpreted as
if Ravana succeeded in physically violating Sita. Vishnu, the Lord of
Sringara rasa, not even Bharatha Muni, only knows what sringara rasa is
being spoken of by Sri Vidyasankar or Sri Srikanta in this context.

In addition to Agni's reassurances, Lord Rama confirms that Ravana could
not even in his thoughts violate Sita leave alone touch her. Her pativrata
dharmam protected her in toto. Now, Sri Sriram said that Sita was referring
to Ravana carrying her from the forest. If Ravana succeeded in lustfully
touching her even to kidnap, then Lord Rama's statement would be false that
he could not even touch her in thoughts. It will also falsify countless
other statements in Ramayana that Sita was not physically or mentally
violated. Valmiki himself explains in what mood Ravana carried her - like
Budha, the son of Moon and Rohini, carrying his mother Rohini! Sita does
not directly go to Ashoka Vana. She walks beside Ravana and surveys his
palaces and treasury. What Ravana says in this context has two meanings. It
appears as if he is using his wealth to entice Sita but the other is in the
mood of child speaking to lokamata! It is part of tantra sastras to worship
the deity as a child. But Ravana could not worship the deity as a lover as
the deity (Sita) did not permit that. So, there was no Sringara Rasa
between Ravana and Sita.

On Sunday, June 3, 2012, Srikanta Narayanaswami wrote:

> It is wrong to think that eroticism is unholy or atrocious. Within the
> standard
> parameters of Indian literary and other artistic conventions, eroticism is
> not
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Sunil Bhattacharjya | 3 Jun 2012 23:02
Picon
Favicon

Re: Books on Bhagawatham.

Dear Mr. Rajaram,

Where did I say Ramayana etc. do not require commentary? Please do not generalise like this. Please read my
mail carefully.

Sincerely'
Sunil KB

________________________________
 From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk@...>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l@...> 
Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Books on Bhagawatham.

There was an opinion by Sri Sunil that Bhagavatham, Ramayana etc. needs no
commentary. I gave the argument in favour of why commentary is required by
quoting a verse from Ramayana that could be very wrongly misinterpreted as
if Ravana succeeded in physically violating Sita. Vishnu, the Lord of
Sringara rasa, not even Bharatha Muni, only knows what sringara rasa is
being spoken of by Sri Vidyasankar or Sri Srikanta in this context.

In addition to Agni's reassurances, Lord Rama confirms that Ravana could
not even in his thoughts violate Sita leave alone touch her. Her pativrata
dharmam protected her in toto. Now, Sri Sriram said that Sita was referring
to Ravana carrying her from the forest. If Ravana succeeded in lustfully
touching her even to kidnap, then Lord Rama's statement would be false that
he could not even touch her in thoughts. It will also falsify countless
other statements in Ramayana that Sita was not physically or mentally
violated. Valmiki himself explains in what mood Ravana carried her - like
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
V Subrahmanian | 4 Jun 2012 03:25
Picon

Re: Purusha and Stree

Sir,

The first position is said from the jiva point of view.  In bhakti-based
dualistic systems the characterization of the jiva as stree is common.
Even in the AksharamaNamAlai of Sri Ramana Maharshi the aspirant is likened
to a woman who places the garland on the beloved.  But all this is from the
dualistic point of view.

What the Purusha sUkta says is from the ParamAtma point of view.  It says
that everything, the whole creation, is nothing but the Purusha.  Here it
is like: all the products of gold are nothing but gold.  For the portion:
puruSha eva idam sarvam, Sri Raghavendra Tirtha (of the Madhva school)
while explaining has cited a smRti: yadadhInA yasya sattA tat tadityeva
bhaNyate: that which is dependent on something else for its very existence,
is said to be that (latter) only.

Actually such a characterization amounts to saying, in Advaitic terms: the
superimposed serpent has no existence of its own; its existence, sattA,
depends on the sattA of the rope.  When we say 'the serpent is'  the isness
belongs to the rope alone.   So, when the rope-knowledge arises it is said:
that which is serpent is none other than rope: PuruSha eva idam sarvam.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36@...>wrote:

> Namaste
>
> I heard in one Pravachana by KS Narayanacharya he is saying we all are
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jaldhar H. Vyas | 4 Jun 2012 05:40
Gravatar

Re: Purusha and Stree

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Venkatesh Murthy wrote:

> Namaste
>
> I heard in one Pravachana by KS Narayanacharya he is saying we all are
> Strees only and Krishna is the only Purusha. We may be men but like
> women we are dependent on Him. Anybody dependent on another is Stree.
> Stree will always depend on Father in childhood, Husband in youth and
> Son in old age. Like this the men are always dependent on Vishnu. He
> is the Purusha. The men are all Strees only. They are men in name
> only.
>

This is the first time I've heard a South Indian mention it but it is a 
common tenet of North Indian varieties of Vaishnavism.  For instance the 
followers of Vallabhacharya maintain that all the Vaishnava saints indeed 
all bhaktas are incarnations of gopis who are the paradigms of bhakti. 
For the most part this is just a theological idea but in extreme cases 
some have become transvestites out of zeal to emulate the gopis.

> But in the Purusha Sukta there is a mantra 'Purusha EvedaGm Sarvam |
> yad Bhutam Yac Ca Bhavyam | '. 'Everything is Purusha That which was
> and That which is to be is Purusha'.
>
> If everything is Purusha there is No Stree at all.
>

At the stage where everything is purush there is no dvandvas like 
male-female at all.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Venkata sriram P | 4 Jun 2012 06:20
Picon
Favicon

Purusha and Stree

Namaste,
 
/////////////
 
But in the Purusha Sukta there is a mantra 'Purusha EvedaGm Sarvam |
yad Bhutam Yac Ca Bhavyam | '. 'Everything is Purusha That which was
and That which is to be is Purusha'.

If everything is Purusha there is No Stree at all.

/////
 
These interpretations are the distorted versions which indicate lack of knowledge of nirukta & veda
bhASyAs. 
 
There was person ( i don't remember now !) who interpreted *puruSa* of puruSa sUkta to be a male and *srI* of
srI sUkta to be female.  So, to maintain the balance of gender, one must study both puruSa & srI sUkta so
that justice to both puruSa & stree can be equally done !
 
God save such souls !
 
regs,
sriram
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Venkatesh Murthy | 4 Jun 2012 06:42
Picon

Re: Purusha and Stree

Namaste

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@...> wrote:
>> If everything is Purusha there is No Stree at all.
>>
>
> At the stage where everything is purush there is no dvandvas like
> male-female at all.
>
>
>> Which position is correct according to Advaita?
>>
>
> Neither.  You need to stop taking these things so literally.
But many people are worshipping Linga and many people like in Kamakhya
Assam are worshipping Yoni. The worshipper of Linga says the whole
world is Linga. The worshipper of Yoni says the whole world is Yoni
only. Some people think everything is male some think everything is
female. Who is correct?
Both may be correct.

In Advaita we can say everything is not only Male or not only female
but Combination of Male and Female. The world is born combining Male
and Female. If Brahman is Neuter It cannot give birth to world. But
when Brahman has become Iswara and Prakruti-Maya the Iswara will
create the world with Prakruti-Maya.
We can say all men have both Maleness and Femaleness in them and all
women have Maleness and Femaleness in them because Male Iswara is in
everybody and the body Sarira of everybody is Prakruti-Maya only.
--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |

Gmane