Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2004 dear shri sudarshan, Sri Alavandar's argument appears to have been meant to score over the conceited and arrogant AkkiyAzhwan, challenging him to refute apparently irrefutable propositions, and not to seriously term every mother with a single son as barren. the next argument, about no woman being a pativrata, should also be taken in the same spirit. regards, dasan, sadagopan - sudarshan madabushi <mksudarshan2002 Hema Narayana <hemanarayana; Narendiran Krishnan <knaren73 Cc: <tatachar; <sadagopaniyengar Wednesday, August 04, 2004 2:31 PM Re: Re: Barren Mothers > > Dear Madam, > > Thank you for quoting the scriptures to establish that > my beloved mother is a "barren woman". > > Going by what you have said, I suppose Kausalya the > mother of Rama too is a "barren woman". Totamba, the > mother of Swami Vedanta Desikan too qualifies as a > "barren woman". > > Although I would never ever belong in the exalted > company of Sri Rama or Sri Desikan, I can at least say > that my own late, beloved "thAyyAr" -- a noble > SriVaishnavite lady who underwent "bharannyAsam" under > the present "azhagiya-singar" and who is hence now a > "vaikunta-vAsi" for sure -- she must be in good > company there amongst other eminently "barren women" > such as TotAmba. > > Many thanks for your enlightening explanation. > Rgds, > > dAsan, > Sudarshan > > > --- Hema Narayana <hemanarayana wrote: > > Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya namaha > > Pranams > > > > In response to the mail written by Sri.Sree Krishna > > Tatachar , I would like to give the explanation from > > the article that appeared in Sri Ranganatha Paduka a > > year ago about Sri.Yamuna's Statements. > > " According to sastras the crow and the banana tree > > are barren, because they beget just a > > single offspring . while the crow gives birth to > > only a single baby crow through a single egg. like > > wise each banana tree yields just a single bunch of > > bananas. By this standard , since you too are > > mother's only son, your mother can very well be > > termed barren > > this is an extract from an article "A Debate with a > > difference " by Sri Sadagopan Iyengar, Coimbatore , > > Sri Ranganatha Paduka. > > > > Adiyal > > Hema Narayana > > > > ______________________ > India Matrimony: Find your life partner online > Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2004 SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA Respected Sri Sudharshan swami, The outrage expressed by you in your reaction to `mother is barren' is absolutely right and logically tenable. This is one more reminder of how we have lost the sap but clung to the shell. Without going into the sustainability of the statement in the context quoted, fearing the eruption of another controversy (for which I seem to have a penchant) let me express what immediately strikes my mind. I write the following in the hope that you, as one whose ability to look beyond what actually strikes the eye which is well demonstrated in your writings, would be willing to know (or had already known) how statements such as these have actually been used in arguments. `My mother is barren' is one of the pet premises that Bhagavad Ramanuja takes up often along with `Devadatta is this or that' assumptions whenever he gets down to deeper explorations into grammatical equations between words in order to take the versions of purvapakshins to task. For instance, in order to establish that the concept of Jeevan mukhthi is untenable, he says it is self- contradictory like `my mother is barren'. If you say that your mother is barren, that is un-sustainable because she as one who has given birth to you can not be barren. Similarly if you say that you can get Release while you are in your body, it is un-sustainable and self- contradictory, for the very fact that you are still inside the body shows that you are embodied and embodiment and Release (as happens in Jeevan mukhthi) can not co-exist. Coming to the context that provoked your noble self, the right way to interpret that would be to apply the logic that Ramanuja followed to arrive at the implication of `That thou art'. He has dedicated considerable space and explanation on how to arrive at the actual import of words that signify more than one attribute, by means of grammatical equation. His theory is that whenever any two different attributes are mentioned which are not capable of being consistently applied to the one and the same thing, it has to be accepted that one of the two words can not have the main and natural significance and that both the words have to be applied. For instance in the sentence, `the man of vAhika ( vAhika is to be interpreted as a person who is outside the vedic religion) country is a `go'', the word `go' actually means ox. But here the quality of the ox comes to be attributed to the man. Whenever the special attributes are mentioned, the thumb rule is to read its meaning in the context of the main attribute of the subject. In the term that invited your outrage, Sir, the main idea that she is a mother in indestructible. It therefore calls for linking the other attribute(s) to the main idea. That she is a mother can not be disputed irrespective of whether she is the mother to one child or many children. So the motherhood is not under scrutiny here. Since she is a mother, she can not be called as barren is another fact that can not be disputed. It therefore comes to centre around how many children she has. Since motherhood and unbarren-ness are indisputable facts, the emphasis lies on begetting many children. At the same time the absence of more than one child does not go against the first two indestructible facts. What is deduced in the statement is `abundance' in the number of children. This is understandable in a society that placed importance on `growth' in all spheres. As one who is well versed in taittriya upanishad, you know for yourself how the emphasis is on `annam'. The very first level explanation given to a beginner- learner of this Upanishad is that one must grow more food and feed more people. That was the beginning of an agrarian society. At a spiritual level, begetting more sathputraa; means gifting the world with more learned beings who would serve the world in different ways. This is comparable to the many noble services that man is expected to do for the sake of loka-kshemam. What immediately comes to my mind is the vachan in Mahabharatha which says that by planting a 100 trees, a man gets the benefits of having begotten 10 sathputra; Should we then conclude that it is better to plant 90 trees and beget one sathputhran to get that punya or plant 1000 trees to get the punya of having given birth to 100 children. Did Gandhari be called a punyavathi for having got 100 children? The emphasis in the above vachan is clearly on promoting tree plantation and conservation. Similarly, the emphasis in the barren women vachan is not on just giving birth to one child or two children, but on giving birth to as many children who prove to be noble persons. In your case, Sri Sudharshan swami, you have proved to be equivalent of 10 sathputhra; or even more by your noble service for the cause of Sanatana dharma. That is why your beloved and reverential mother had with foresight remained content with just one child. My prostrations on her feet!! Regards. , sadagopaniyengar <sadagopaniyengar@v...> wrote: > dear shri sudarshan, > Sri Alavandar's argument appears to have been meant to score over the > conceited and arrogant AkkiyAzhwan, challenging him to refute apparently > irrefutable propositions, and not to seriously term every mother with a > single son as barren. the next argument, about no woman being a pativrata, > should also be taken in the same spirit. > regards, dasan, sadagopan > - > sudarshan madabushi <mksudarshan2002> > Hema Narayana <hemanarayana>; Narendiran Krishnan > <knaren73> > Cc: <tatachar@a...>; <sadagopaniyengar@v...> > Wednesday, August 04, 2004 2:31 PM > Re: Re: Barren Mothers > > > > > > Dear Madam, > > > > Thank you for quoting the scriptures to establish that > > my beloved mother is a "barren woman". > > > > Going by what you have said, I suppose Kausalya the > > mother of Rama too is a "barren woman". Totamba, the > > mother of Swami Vedanta Desikan too qualifies as a > > "barren woman". > > > > Although I would never ever belong in the exalted > > company of Sri Rama or Sri Desikan, I can at least say > > that my own late, beloved "thAyyAr" -- a noble > > SriVaishnavite lady who underwent "bharannyAsam" under > > the present "azhagiya-singar" and who is hence now a > > "vaikunta-vAsi" for sure -- she must be in good > > company there amongst other eminently "barren women" > > such as TotAmba. > > > > Many thanks for your enlightening explanation. > > Rgds, > > > > dAsan, > > Sudarshan > > > > > > --- Hema Narayana <hemanarayana> wrote: > > > Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya namaha > > > Pranams > > > > > > In response to the mail written by Sri.Sree Krishna > > > Tatachar , I would like to give the explanation from > > > the article that appeared in Sri Ranganatha Paduka a > > > year ago about Sri.Yamuna's Statements. > > > " According to sastras the crow and the banana tree > > > are barren, because they beget just a > > > single offspring . while the crow gives birth to > > > only a single baby crow through a single egg. like > > > wise each banana tree yields just a single bunch of > > > bananas. By this standard , since you too are > > > mother's only son, your mother can very well be > > > termed barren > > > this is an extract from an article "A Debate with a > > > difference " by Sri Sadagopan Iyengar, Coimbatore , > > > Sri Ranganatha Paduka. > > > > > > Adiyal > > > Hema Narayana > > > > > > > > ____________________ __ > > India Matrimony: Find your life partner online > > Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
