purushasuktam - varna

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Thank you for this piece of enlightenment.

Dear Saptha, I welcome some sarcasm, I will take it with a smile

The stand that you will go only by the literal is parochial. It does not stand to reason.

No saptha, that is not what I am saying. I am ready to accept any "deeper" meaning that is provided with proper support, at least grant you consistency while disagreeing with it.

So far, what you seem to say is that women by nature are so beautiful and alluring -- no fault of the women themselves -- that even great and learned men can fall prey. So, you are still placing the blame on somebody other than the one who is unable to control his carnal desires. Unless I misunderstand, this inner meaning is worse than the literal meaning.

There was a case in Florida some years ao where a rapist claimed the victim asked for it by dressing in a provocative way. The jury rejected this defense. In our discussion we are talking about chaste women and learned men, and this combination can lead to loss of self control is not very pretty.

Cheers!

 

[sapthajihva]

Ofcourse Manu means women are objects of desire. He streotypes women in the typical MCP (male chavunistic p*g) fashion. And ofcourse dooshanam is construed in that way. What was blatant about what i wrote?

Manu says it so blatantly, but you have decided "to imagine" that he said it in the context of sookshanam. Manu has not mentioned or alluded to this meaning anywhere in the MS.
Your own individual "imagination" cannot hold true as the meaning of this verse.

Of course you are wont to interpret it your way. Manu has not said it blatantly - it is you who is assigning a blatant meaning to the verse!

I have already explained the process of understanding a verse. Now, the effort is yours.

The verse is told in plain and simple sanskrit -- "nature of women is faulty / defective / contaminated / weak. so (even) a learned man must not dwell / inhabit / be near that which can make a man slave to madness / intoxication"...
You chuckles notwithstanding, its obvious they you have "inferred" this in your own imagined context.

Of course, a verse would be in a language as it has to convey a meaning. The understanding is not so simple. Your inability is not my disability.

There is nothing in this plain sanskrit verse that mentions any sookshana. Neither is anything like that mentioned prior to the verse or after the verse.

I have reasoned out as to how one should construe the meaning. If you do not want to accept it, there is no point in this discussion.

The ones that demean women are just interpolations. Nothing to contemplate on it - and that too in your own imagined context.

A person like Manu Bhagawan does not write without a reason. Kaaranam should be established for any meaningful understanding. Your presumptions galore in every word of your posts.

And don't bring the bheda and abheda shruti in this respect. Those are philosophical differences. And obviously with no connection to these verses.

You didn't quite catch the analogy, did you?

Please let me know which sampradayic teaching is "inferring" any of these verses in your imagined contexts.

As I had explained, I have reasoned out the meanings, in line with the proper method, not by the literal alone, as you have done it. And btw, the reference to saampradhayic gurus was to go and study under them.

What the verse says is in plain words, that anyone can understand --

Maatra svasra duhitra va na viviktaasno bhavet

......

Balvan indriygramo vidvansam api karshati

- balvan (strong man), indriyagramo (vulgar senses), vidvan (learned man) karshati (draw, pull, drag)
- meaning, a learned man can also be drawn to his vulgar senses.

The senses could captivate the mind, in the context of leading a man away from his chosen path. That the senses can make a man, its slave, is indicated here. Senses, cannot always be meant to mean sexual pleasure. It means strong emotions. In other words, it concurs with the other verse which says that men must be wary of women. There it is charm and beauty which could persuade, and here it is the bond of emotions.

So what is the situation (which demands attention "rather than the literal" here) that you are imagining - that he only meant rituals?

I again repeat - the verse says it plain and simple - Na svatantrayena kartavyam kim chid karya grihotva api - a woman must not have svantrata (indepndence) to do anything within her griha (house).

The verse neither says rituals, nor specifies what she must not do by herself. It just says she has no freedom, that's all, plain and simple.

Manu wrote the dharmashasthras to enhance and harmonize the society.

Balyay pitra vashay (in childhood under the control of father), tishthayth panigrahasya youvanay (in youth to husband),
putranam bhartri preytay (under son as a widow),
na bhajayath sri svatantranam (a female cannot participate independently) (bhajana - share / participate).

The verse so clearly says a woman must be under the control of father in childhood, under husband in youth, under son as widow and must not participate in anything independently or share in anything.

Where is the context of your intepretation (of lamp, raging fire, etc)? And may i know by which school of hinduim are your interpretations endorsed?

Which vaidheeka school endorses your interpretations?

Oh how sad. So everything to do with current science is short-sighted and incapable of realizing the antiquity of "dharmashastra".

This is where your short-sightedness steps in; your innate tendency to presume. My remark was that science is not capable of evaluating the age of the texts which are apoureshaya. Clearly I did not say 'everything' has to be discarded!

No wonder mullahs also live in such a self-delusionary world. Ah well, we all share the genetic pool, don't we....

You may kindly exclude me from your group...

You have mentioned your POVs and imaginations as "interpretations". And you accept that the meanings of the verses you have mentioned are your own. Now please let me know which sampradaya endorses the "interpretations" or explanations you have given?

I have one question to ask - which vaidheeka acharya or guru endorses your interpretations?

 

[sapthajihva]

...
So far, what you seem to say is that women by nature are so beautiful and alluring -- no fault of the women themselves -- that even great and learned men can fall prey. So, you are still placing the blame on somebody other than the one who is unable to control his carnal desires. Unless I misunderstand, this inner meaning is worse than the literal meaning.
....

The verse ordains the men to be careful in their manners while dealing with women - not to take at plain sight, but to use caution. This is a regulation on the menfolk!!! He does not say - let loose yourself and do not suppress your desires, come what may!

There is no blame game here. I am saying that Manu intended to control the desires of men here and hence the caution.

I will take the example of the Florida case you cited - If somebody had ground in, into his mind, that one should not be given in to temptations, the rapist wouldn't have become one, isn't it? Even if a women were so provocative, his mind would constantly remind him of the knowledge that one should not indulge to satisfy carnal pleasures.

Regards,

 

[happyhindu]

Of course you are wont to interpret it your way. Manu has not said it blatantly - it is you who is assigning a blatant meaning to the verse!

I have already explained the process of understanding a verse. Now, the effort is yours.

Of course, a verse would be in a language as it has to convey a meaning. The understanding is not so simple. Your inability is not my disability.

I have reasoned out as to how one should construe the meaning. If you do not want to accept it, there is no point in this discussion.

A person like Manu Bhagawan does not write without a reason. Kaaranam should be established for any meaningful understanding. Your presumptions galore in every word of your posts.

You didn't quite catch the analogy, did you?

As I had explained, I have reasoned out the meanings, in line with the proper method, not by the literal alone, as you have done it. And btw, the reference to saampradhayic gurus was to go and study under them.

The senses could captivate the mind, in the context of leading a man away from his chosen path. That the senses can make a man, its slave, is indicated here. Senses, cannot always be meant to mean sexual pleasure. It means strong emotions. In other words, it concurs with the other verse which says that men must be wary of women. There it is charm and beauty which could persuade, and here it is the bond of emotions.

All these are just your assertions Saptha.

No logic, no proof, just verses intrepreted within the boundry lines of your own "imaginations".

Which vaidheeka school endorses your interpretations?

None. None of the monks i spoke to are able to relate these interpolated verses with the rest of the manusmrithi.

And please note - i did not offer any interpretations or self-imagined meanings i only mentioned the literal translated meaning.

This is where your short-sightedness steps in; your innate tendency to presume. My remark was that science is not capable of evaluating the age of the texts which are apoureshaya. Clearly I did not say 'everything' has to be discarded!

Neither did i say everything has to be discarded. This is a case of naach na jaane aangan tayda. I did not even talk about science here. Am still talking only abt historical research.

The apourusheya part is just "faith". In terms of history, all languages have a beginning, all literature has a beginning.

You may kindly exclude me from your group...

Saptha, genetic research shows muslims and brahmins share a common gene pool in quite a few parts of india. The lesser we speak on this, the better. Anyways, its very known that muslim ransacked temples, and its obvious who lived in the vicinity of temples. Its also obvious who the muslims hated the most as kafirs.

I have one question to ask - which vaidheeka acharya or guru endorses your interpretations?

i already said none.

Now you tell me which sampradaya offers the same explanations as you have?

You have already mentioned that the meanings of these verses are your own. Then, why expect anyone to accept your "imaginations". And claim that others are interpreting it their own way.

 

[sapthajihva]

My assertions come with a process of reasoning, of which I have already apprised you. In spite of this if you reject it, please state the logic in it. Saying that my statements are not logical wont do. You have to state the illogical part in my reasoning.

I have clearly said that I am giving a meaning (not imaginations) apart from the literal - now you cannot repeatedly rebuke it without explaining why my reasoning will not hold good. That is the logical way to refute, in any debate. Not simply crying out that there is 'no logic'...

Now please, am waiting to see your response on how my reasoning does not stand any logic.

Thanks,

 

[happyhindu]

My assertions come with a process of reasoning, of which I have already apprised you. In spite of this if you reject it, please state the logic in it. Saying that my statements are not logical wont do. You have to state the illogical part in my reasoning.

I have clearly said that I am giving a meaning (not imaginations) apart from the literal - now you cannot repeatedly rebuke it without explaining why my reasoning will not hold good. That is the logical way to refute, in any debate. Not simply crying out that there is 'no logic'...

Now please, am waiting to see your response on how my reasoning does not stand any logic.

Thanks,

No idea how and why are you calling the meanings you have inferred out of your own imagined contexts as stuff coming from reasoning and logic...

No idea where have you applied any reasoning nor can one find any logical parts in your assertions.

No one needs logic or reasoning to create meanings out of imaginations.

What you have done is to simply imagine that the context of the verses and derive some meaning out of it. And they are all just your own meanings.

Your meanings are not endorsed by any sampradayam. Its not some official version of say, a mutt or any institution. Its all just your own personal POVs. So nothing more to say on this.

Thanks.

 

[sapthajihva]

It is alright, I am listing at how I arrived at my reasoning, which is quite simple enough...

• Understand the meaning of the literal, and then the verse.
• If it does not stand to reason, apply a rationale which would give a more suitable meaning.
• Literals, if they seemingly contradict in their meaning to the verse, to consider the more nobler meaning.
• Lastly, if nothing helps, better to approach an acharya or a pandit for guidance instead of deciding on my own.

I am not concocting this process on my own. This is how I have been taught, by my elders, to understand the scriptures.

If this is not reason to you, I do not know what is...

Thanks & Regards,

 

[happyhindu]

It is alright, I am listing at how I arrived at my reasoning, which is quite simple enough...

• Understand the meaning of the literal, and then the verse.
• If it does not stand to reason, apply a rationale which would give a more suitable meaning.
• Literals, if they seemingly contradict in their meaning to the verse, to consider the more nobler meaning.
• Lastly, if nothing helps, better to approach an acharya or a pandit for guidance instead of deciding on my own.

I am not concocting this process on my own. This is how I have been taught, by my elders, to understand the scriptures.

If this is not reason to you, I do not know what is...

Thanks & Regards,

Alright saptha. What is 'reasoning' to you might not be seen that way by others.

However, whatever you have mentioned abt the MS verses will still be regarded as your peronal POVs created out of your (own) self-made contexts.

Regards.

PS: Please carry on your conversation with Nara. I in the meantime will finish off my pending work and join in this conversation next week. Thanks.

 

[sapthajihva]

What is 'reasoning' to you might not be seen that way by others.

That is why I explained the process. If others do not accept it, they have to state the 'reason' for the same. Which is why I requested you to point out the illogical points in my post, albeit, be my interpretation.

Now, my other query is, if there is an alternative available, which only takes a shift in our perception, why dont we take it as the guiding line, instead of what we perceive to be a more ulterior interpretation?

Please carry on your conversation with Nara. I in the meantime will finish off my pending work and join in this conversation next week.

Sure.

 

[Nara]

The verse ordains the men to be careful in their manners while dealing with women ..

This is good advice, but in the process Manu takes an apparent swipe at women by using derogatory language such as "women are dhooshanam" that needs some fancyfoot interpretation to make it a little bit palatable?

Thiruvalluvar also cautions men to keep their desires in check without using words that put women down. So, why Saptha, why can't Manu give advice to men without using language that puts women down? This makes Manu more an MCP than a Bhagawan.

Cheers!

 

[sapthajihva]

Shri Nara,

This is good advice, but in the process Manu takes an apparent swipe at women by using derogatory language such as "women are dhooshanam" that needs some fancyfoot interpretation to make it a little bit palatable?

Thiruvalluvar also cautions men to keep their desires in check without using words that put women down. So, why Saptha, why can't Manu give advice to men without using language that puts women down? This makes Manu more an MCP than a Bhagawan.

Cheers!

IMO, there is no swipe intended. The word indicates the severity of the desire.

Women are the most desirous object; it is difficult to spurn the requests of a beautiful woman, both in intellect and physique, even by a learned man (the wise are deceived by flattery!). As such, only a strong word would shake them up from their stupor.

Regards,

 

[Raghy]

Sow.Sri.Happy Hindu,

"Ofcourse i read the valmiki ramayana.

So if manu prescribes a man aged 30 to marry a girl aged 12, is he prescribing marriages from the ramayana period?"

What Ramyana period has to do with a man aged 30 years marrying a girl 12 years old? In the same period a person by the name Rama married a girl by the name Sita who was one year elder to him.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

...... As such, only a strong word would shake them up from their stupor.

Saptha, strong words of caution are fine, but strong words against women is totally uncalled for and mean, not worthy of a text held sacred by many. Such language against women, and many others, makes this text worthy of all the scorn it receives and none of the reverence shown to it by the orthdoxy.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

Me: What is 'reasoning' to you might not be seen that way by others.

Saptha: That is why I explained the process. If others do not accept it, they have to state the 'reason' for the same. Which is why I requested you to point out the illogical points in my post, albeit, be my interpretation.

Now, my other query is, if there is an alternative available, which only takes a shift in our perception, why dont we take it as the guiding line, instead of what we perceive to be a more ulterior interpretation?

Sure.

Saptha,

Those who know basic sanskrit know this:

1) To derive an allegorical or metaphorical meaning of a phrase, the phrase must have tatpurusha or compound words that can be broken down into two (or more words) with more than one meaning.

2) If a writer has used such a word-contruction, it means, he intends for the verse to have an another meaning.

3) The broken down words must correspond to their root meanings.

[Example: any word made using the root sound dhi must only correspond to the meanings of dhi, which include wisdom, intellect, art, science, mind, opinion, thought, intention and reflection. See this list: http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=dhi&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=AU Note the difference in दी and धी - which is why pronunciation or uccharanam is so important.

One cannot construe the meaning of dhi as per his own imagination as table, chair, iron, blade, gas, solid, etc, or as anything that pleases him as per his own wishes].

4) One cannot assign one's own imagination as the meaning of any text.

5) None of the specific verses of the Manusmrithi i have stated (on the derogatory stand taken) on women have any such sentence construction. In such case, their meaning is taken as the literal.

6) You can compare and contrast those interpolated manusmrithi verses with the Gayatri - the gayatri can be broken down all the way into individual sounds (root sounds).

Let us not talk go back to the talk on 'perception' Saptha.

Every person can have his own 'perception' which is just his own 'imagination'.

We cannot derive meanings of texts based on our own imaginations or perceptions.

Saptha, hope you will also understand that the way (self-imagined contexts) in which you have derived the meanings of the verses wud be considered faulty by any sampradayam. Nobody will accept them. Please let me know if your meanings are acceptable to your gurus / elders.

And if Manu had really intended the kind of meanings you have given (based on your own contexts), methinks he would have been a misogynist, not just a chauvanist.

But Manu seems to have been quite far from being a chauvinist.

Its not his fault that interpolated verses came to exist in his script.

In today's times, knowingly or unknowingly, nobody is really following the laws of the smrithis.

Both, iyers and iyengars, today are more shrauta / grihya sutra followers, seems to be very little smartha / smrithis left in them. Please correct me if am wrong.

 

[happyhindu]

Me:
So if manu prescribes a man aged 30 to marry a girl aged 12, is he prescribing marriages from the ramayana period?"

Raghy:
What Ramyana period has to do with a man aged 30 years marrying a girl 12 years old? In the same period a person by the name Rama married a girl by the name Sita who was one year elder to him.

Yes Raghy, there is no mention in Ramayana of anyone being married with that kind of age difference (as prescribed by Manusmrithi). Its very possible that Manu did not write that verse.

The Swayamvaram event of Rama-Sita is well-known. But almost all later-day smrithis prohibited self-choice of bride / groom. So Swayamvaram and Gandharva Vivahas came to be considered unacceptable forms of marriage in the later-day smrithi period.

The reason (given by Rajbali Pandey in Hindu Sanskaras) was that for both Swayamvaram and Gandharava vivaha, the bride and groom must have crossed some age (they cannot be kids) to choose each other. But the later-day smrithis prescribed a lower age for marriage. And so child marriages became common.

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

Saptha,

Sorry missed this post.

happyhindu, you have accepted that you have not gone beyond the literal meaning. That is a fallacy.

When did i say this or accept this? :decision:

Any meaning which depends purely on the literal alone cannot be a proper interpretation. This is not my opinion, but this is the manner in which any suthra has to be understood. If you happenned to ask a student of law, he would begin to tell you a process of deciding on a case. Similarly, the 'literal' alone does not prove any taken case.

The methodology you have used to infer meanings (from sheer imagination and self-made contexts) will not be accepted by any sampradayam. It wud be called a figment of your own creativity. I have no idea how you can call self-imagined meanings derived from self-created contexts, as reasoning or logic.

Please see my previous post http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/2222-purushasuktam-varna-7.html#post38482 on how allegorical or metaphorical meanings of phrases are derived.

If you want to have a proper and meaningful debate, first try to contemplate on why Manu has said so, while not contradicting the shruthis, then perhaps we may be more closer to the issue.

In the same words you have used:

If you want to have a proper and meaningful discussion, first try to stop making self-created meanings for the verses. Contemplate on why the verses do not tally with the rest of the text. See in what ways they are contradicting the shrutis. Then perhaps we may be more closer to the issue.

 

[anandb]

Shri. Nara,

Dear Anand: Greetings!

People like me wonder why you refuse to give answers to questions that are placed.

Let us first refocus. This part of the discussion started with Shri Ramanathan expressing his disappointment with undue attention being paid to just two lines from Putusha Shuktham. The reason for this attention is that it is the earliest mention of Varna and in as much as Dharmashashthras are supposed to derive their authority from Shruthi, these verses must be held responsible for the varna/jati discrimination.

The last section of your response is quite intriguing. May be I misunderstand you, but it seems you are saying it is alrgiht to dump this entire Varna/Jati system and just follow your concience, am I right? Are you then in favor of declaring Manu not valid for this age?

Cheers!

In fact I need to ask you the very same question. I posed a question some time back as to what is discriminatory in those two lines of the Purusa sukta. I never got an answer. Just the mention of the varnas does not amount to discrimination. There is nothing to imply that one varna is superior to another.

I suggested the easy way out for people who keep having doubts about the Srutis. I don't take the literal meaning myself. Manusmrti is not a religious book dealing with the Absolute or the Atman or any other meta physical stuff. It is more a codification of the laws that must be applied for leading a life. Since it is not a revealed text may be Manu himself foresaw the possibility of human interpolations at a later stage. That is why he says when in doubt look at the Srutis first. When the human conscience is tuned to what the Srutis speak there will not be variance between the two. To me it also means that whether it is the srutis or the smrtis or the itihasas or the puranas they all convey the same message and a conscience tuned to these will arrive at the same conclusion.

 

[anandb]

Yep nobody is following them.

I wonder how iyengars are following manusmrithi. Manu forbids brideprice in no simple terms but some iyengar weddings continue the practice of bride price to this day.

Manu also forbids wedding between father's sister's (atthai's) children and mother's brother's (mama's) children.

It does not matter that people, at their personal level, are not following the MS. But why does a mutt wants ppl to follow it then?

The mutt wants ppl to follow them because there are a lot of good things said in them as well. The mutt does not say discriminate against women or a varna. The mutt says follow the varna-dharma. That is it.

Yes, it does seem like the extant version of MS is a doctored version. This is what historians say too. So why does a mutt want ppl to follow things without making it clear what parts of a smrithi to follow then?

There is no further need to spell this out clearly because it is clear already. The mutt says all the shastras derive their authority from the sruti and yourself said that the sruti does not appear to be discriminatory then goes without saying that the smrtis should be taken along with the spirit of the srutis. The people who follow the mutt knows this well. It goes without saying then that the srutis should be studied first or at least have a working knowledge of them. The problem today is a few more discriminatory clauses can be added and 500 years from now the same debate about interpolations will be going on. All the mutt will be doing is constantly issuing clarifications and denials. On the contrary, the mutt's position is quite clear as we know where they stand. The actual problem is with the action part. How many people know the Srutis or the Smrtis and how to distinguish between the good and bad? It is becoming thin due to "changing mores in society".

 

[sapthajihva]

1) To derive an allegorical or metaphorical meaning of a phrase, the phrase must have tatpurusha or compound words that can be broken down into two (or more words) with more than one meaning.

There are two kinds of interpretations: in compound words depending on where the emphasis is - this is the inherent nature of the word. This is not what am referring to.

The other is the meaning of the word so derived from the Dhathu itself. This word has a literal meaning which has to fit in with the context.

2) If a writer has used such a word-contruction, it means, he intends for the verse to have an another meaning.

word constructions are not intentional, rather governed by sandhi.

3) The broken down words must correspond to their root meanings.

The root for Dhooshanam is Dhush which has quite a variety of meanings from the extreme to the mild. So it depends on how we fit it in. The dictionary meaning says: 'be spoiled', 'impaired', 'defiled', 'corrupted'...

Here the word implies a quality (which could impair the reasoning fo men) that acts upon the learned - which is the crux of the verse. The intent is, for the menfolk to be aware of the potential of women to lead them astray.

[Example: any word made using the root sound dhi must only correspond to the meanings of dhi, which include wisdom, intellect, art, science, mind, opinion, thought, intention and reflection..........

One cannot construe the meaning of dhi as per his own imagination as table, chair, iron, blade, gas, solid, etc, or as anything that pleases him as per his own wishes].

See my example above - I am not wildly inferring meanings for Dhathus. Hope you get the meaning.

5) None of the specific verses of the Manusmrithi i have stated (on the derogatory stand taken) on women have any such sentence construction. In such case, their meaning is taken as the literal.

As I said, where the meaning does not fit properly with the literal, one has to go beyond.

We cannot derive meanings of texts based on our own imaginations or perceptions.

You would have heard Shri Nara mention about Anumanam as a Pramanam? Now, the effect is the smrithi; anumanam should be such that it does not contradict the shruthi. Hence, the literal meaning cannot apply here.

Saptha, hope you will also understand that the way (self-imagined contexts) in which you have derived the meanings of the verses wud be considered faulty by any sampradayam. Nobody will accept them. Please let me know if your meanings are acceptable to your gurus / elders.

Your interpretation is faulty. Grammatical interpretation is one thing. Looking beyond the literal is another thing, to suit the context is another. Without knowing the context, you are qualifying my comments!!!

Both, iyers and iyengars, today are more shrauta / grihya sutra followers, seems to be very little smartha / smrithis left in them. Please correct me if am wrong.

Grihya suthras derive their authority only from the smrithis.

 

[sapthajihva]

The methodology you have used to infer meanings (from sheer imagination and self-made contexts) ....... I have no idea how you can call self-imagined meanings derived from self-created contexts, as reasoning or logic.

You seem to be confined to the realm of your narrow perception. Why dont you take my interpretation to a sanskrit pandit and ask him whether it can fit in or not? Rather than your opinion!

Please see my previous post http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/2222-purushasuktam-varna-7.html#post38482 on how allegorical or metaphorical meanings of phrases are derived.

You can see my response to it.

If you want to have a proper and meaningful discussion, first try to stop making self-created meanings for the verses. ....... See in what ways they are contradicting the shrutis. Then perhaps we may be more closer to the issue.

You do not want to point out how my alternative is not logic enough. You simply carp on it that they cannot have any meaning other than the literal. I ask you why not?

Vyakaranam tells you how words are joined, how verbs vary according to case and person etc... Tell me one suthra of panini which says that only the literal meaning should be accepted in all cases - to support your cause. I will accept it.

I am still waiting to see how my alternatives are not reasonable or logical. You seem to linger on the point that there can be no alternative explanation itself (which is incorrect)!!!

 

[sapthajihva]

... Such language against women, and many others, makes this text worthy of all the scorn it receives and none of the reverence shown to it by the orthdoxy.

So, now your grudge is with the language; are you ok with the intent then?

Regards,

 

[happyhindu]

The mutt wants ppl to follow them because there are a lot of good things said in them as well. The mutt does not say discriminate against women or a varna. The mutt says follow the varna-dharma. That is it.

Sorry the mutts neither endorse women studying vedas nor do they clarify on the jati-dharma they propagate wrt smrithis.

I think we have spoken enuf on this. Its you to your POV and me to mine.

There is no further need to spell this out clearly because it is clear already. The mutt says all the shastras derive their authority from the sruti and yourself said that the sruti does not appear to be discriminatory then goes without saying that the smrtis should be taken along with the spirit of the srutis. The people who follow the mutt knows this well. It goes without saying then that the srutis should be studied first or at least have a working knowledge of them. The problem today is a few more discriminatory clauses can be added and 500 years from now the same debate about interpolations will be going on. All the mutt will be doing is constantly issuing clarifications and denials. On the contrary, the mutt's position is quite clear as we know where they stand. The actual problem is with the action part. How many people know the Srutis or the Smrtis and how to distinguish between the good and bad? It is becoming thin due to "changing mores in society".

This is all just your own POV Anand.

My POV is this and I am tired of repeating this:

The mutts have to be clear about what they are propagating. They cannot mention mudaliyars as shudras and then go on to conduct rituals for them in the very premises of the kanchi temple in return for donations. If they do that, then it means they are not practicing what they preach. In such a case, i am entitled to call them greedy, and practicing hypocricy.

Anand, this topic is getting tiring for me. I am not asking you to change your POV. At the same time, there is no point writing posts to me, because you know my POV well.

Lets agree to disagree and move on.

Peace.

 

[happyhindu]

There are two kinds of interpretations: in compound words depending on where the emphasis is - this is the inherent nature of the word. This is not what am referring to.

The other is the meaning of the word so derived from the Dhathu itself. This word has a literal meaning which has to fit in with the context.

Please let me know from the dhathu derivation how your interpretation of the verses fit in?

Root words (dhatus) cannot be interpreted as per own's own fancies.

If you can break down those verses to their root sounds or root words, derive a meaning from it and then explain it, it would make sense.

You cannot just like that claim that your imagined meanings are dhatus-derivations.

Instead, please show how you have derived the meaning of all those verses from the root words (dhatus) ?

word constructions are not intentional, rather governed by sandhi.

Thanks Saptha, i do know basic grammer.

The root for Dhooshanam is Dhush which has quite a variety of meanings from the extreme to the mild. So it depends on how we fit it in. The dictionary meaning says: 'be spoiled', 'impaired', 'defiled', 'corrupted'...

The meaning of dooshanam is obvious. No need to explain that.

Am asking about your imagination of sookshanam of women. Which dhatu-derivation of that verse can be used to infer things as per your imagined idea?

And not only that verse, please provide the dhatu-derivations for all the imagined meanings of the verses (that you have mentioned).

Here the word implies a quality (which could impair the reasoning fo men) that acts upon the learned - which is the crux of the verse. The intent is, for the menfolk to be aware of the potential of women to lead them astray.

Exactly, the verse does ask men to be wary of women. And it says it crassly and directly. It does not refer to any sookshanam.

See my example above - I am not wildly inferring meanings for Dhathus. Hope you get the meaning.

Nope sorry, you need to explain. Not only for the first verse. But also for the other verses - how did you infer their meanings based on dhatu derivation?

As I said, where the meaning does not fit properly with the literal, one has to go beyond.

That does not mean every tom, dick and harry can "imagine" things, create contexts and come up with some meaning as per their own fancies.

If the author intended for diff meanings to be derived, he will contruct his phrases in that way and will also use the appropriate root words (dhatus or elements).

You would have heard Shri Nara mention about Anumanam as a Pramanam? Now, the effect is the smrithi; anumanam should be such that it does not contradict the shruthi. Hence, the literal meaning cannot apply here.

But your imagined meanings contradict the shruti. Shrutis do not portray women badly.

Reg, anumanam as pramanam, all monks derive meanings that way only (but within the context of the root sounds of the verses and not as per their own fancies).

You cannot just like that claim that the literal meaning does not apply here. You need to explain why and show how your imagined meanings fit in with the dhatu-derivations of the words.

Your interpretation is faulty. Grammatical interpretation is one thing. Looking beyond the literal is another thing, to suit the context is another. Without knowing the context, you are qualifying my comments!!!

When did I even offer an interpretation (or imagined meaning). I only gave the literal translation and am questioning YOUR interpretation.

Grihya suthras derive their authority only from the smrithis.

This is a large topic and we will come to it later.

You seem to be confined to the realm of your narrow perception. Why dont you take my interpretation to a sanskrit pandit and ask him whether it can fit in or not? Rather than your opinion!

Saptha, its about not my opinion or yours.

Deriving meanings have a methodology to it, which cannot be deviated from.

If you can explain the meanings of the verses from your dhatu-derivation version, then please go ahead and do so.

For something that deals with high school level sanskrit, i need not go to a sanskrit pandit.

Give me a plausible explanation for the verses, based on the dhatu-derivations, and i shall call and speak to some monks about it to ascertain if it can be held as a valid interpretation.

You can see my response to it.

You do not want to point out how my alternative is not logic enough. You simply carp on it that they cannot have any meaning other than the literal. I ask you why not?

Simply because there is no logic in it.

You have only imagined a scenario, derived meanings from it and passed it off as the "interpretation" of the veses. Any day-dreamer can do that.

Please take the verses, if you see compund words, try breaking them down to individual sounds (root words or dhatus) and then tell me the meaning you have derived from it.

Vyakaranam tells you how words are joined, how verbs vary according to case and person etc... Tell me one suthra of panini which says that only the literal meaning should be accepted in all cases - to support your cause. I will accept it.

Saptha, please do not bother to mention about vyakarnam and verbs. Am not a beginner.

Please deal with me how you wud deal with an intermediate student. Also do consider me as someone who has access to people specialized in advanced sanskrit.

Panini never said only literal meaning should be accepted in all cases.

You simply just need to provide the dhatu-derivation basis for each verse (for the interpretations you offered), and we shall take it from there.

I am still waiting to see how my alternatives are not reasonable or logical. You seem to linger on the point that there can be no alternative explanation itself (which is incorrect)!!!

Already explained. Any high school teeanger with a haywire imagination can imagine 1001 contexts and derive meanings of each verse. Sanskrit does not permit that. There are grammatical rules for how allegorical meanings are to be derived.

Please provide the dhatu-derivation basis for each verse (for the interpretations you offered). If you do so, then one can say it follows a process of reasoning.

Without doing that, you cannot claim that your imagination has to be accepted as 'logical' just because you mention it to be so.

Regards.

 

[sapthajihva]

hh, I did not say that my meanings were derived from dhathus....
You are imagining things here.

What I say is plain and simple - The variations of a dhathu has many equivalents in practice and it depends on the context. As an example, I cited it for Dhooshanam. I have not wildly imagined, rather deducted it logically to suit the context. As a supporting, I gave examples of how it connects to the verse. I am not wildly concocting meanings to dhathus - nobody would do that. Am surprised that you resort to such childish retorts!

Your accusations are irrational. Apart from ranting that I am wildly reasoning, it is apparent that my explanation has not even entered your mind, let alone reason it out.

You have not yet pointed out the illogical part in my reasoning!

Instead, please show how you have derived the meaning of all those verses from the root words (dhatus) ?

Let us take it one at a time - do you agree that there is no illogical part in my reasoning of dooshanam in the verse?

Will definitely provide reasoning with dhathus for all the meaning, rest assured. Till then, you have to hold your qualification of my interpretation to yourself ..

One more thing - please enlighten me about the rules of sanskrit which says when and where allegorical or metaphorical meanings have to be construed!

Thanks,

 

[happyhindu]

hh, I did not say that my meanings were derived from dhathus....
You are imagining things here.

Then on what basis have you offered interpretations for those verses?

What I say is plain and simple - The variations of a dhathu has many equivalents in practice and it depends on the context. As an example, I cited it for Dhooshanam. I have not wildly imagined, rather deducted it logically to suit the context. As a supporting, I gave examples of how it connects to the verse. I am not wildly concocting meanings to dhathus - nobody would do that. Am surprised that you resort to such childish retorts!

You are making your own fancy meanings and intepretations (even claiming about humans being different in ramayana period, just to explain a verse that says a 30-year old man must marry a 12-year old girl).

Now, lets go verse by verse for each interpretation you have offered.

I am giving you just the first verse here:
स्वभावं एश नारिनाम इह दूषनम |
अतो अर्थान न प्रमाद्यन्ति प्रमदासुविपाश्रित: ||

You said:
My interpretation: This refers to the sookshmam of women i.e., they have the power - mental and physical (beauty) which can captivate even the most learned of men. Therefore, this verse, both praises the charm/intellect of women, and at the same time advices the menfolk to be wary. What is the problem in this?!

Let me know on what basis you derived that interpretation for that verse. Where does the verse (or its root sounds) mention or allude to your interpretation that i have put in bold?

Your accusations are irrational. Apart from ranting that I am wildly reasoning, it is apparent that my explanation has not even entered your mind, let alone reason it out.

Where have i accussed you? And i did not rant that you are "wildly reasoning". Am saying there is no reasoning at all. One cannot "imagine" the meaning and claim it is based on reasoning / logic.

If there is logic / reasoning, then just go ahead and provide the basis for your interpretations.

You do mention that those meanings are your own. And then go on to claim its logical without providing the basis to claim so. And then even go on to pass comments on the person questioning your claims.

You have not yet pointed out the illogical part in my reasoning!

Let us take it one at a time - do you agree that there is no illogical part in my reasoning of dooshanam in the verse?

Because there is no logic.

Everyone knows the meaning of dooshanam. What is the logic / illogical part in it?

Anyways, no point repeating this saptha. I have provided the first verse. Just go ahead and explain how you interpreted its meaning the way you did.

Will definitely provide reasoning with dhathus for all the meaning, rest assured. Till then, you have to hold your qualification of my interpretation to yourself ..

You should have done this first. And then made claims of using logic / reasoning in your interpretations. Ok, i will wait for your explanations on the verses now.

Infact, if you provide a valid basis for those verses, it will actually help me in my work.

One more thing - please enlighten me about the rules of sanskrit which says when and where allegorical or metaphorical meanings have to be construed!

This servant of god and student of sanskrit mentioned what she knows here: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/38482-post64.html

But lofty pundits like you might know better.

So i will wait for your reasoning with dhathus for all the meaning (of all verses for which you have offered your own meanings).

thanks.