[Advaita-l] Women and Paramahamsa sannyasa

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

Page 181-182
 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-utNEpTZWUkC&pg=PA182&dq=women+sannyasa&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9zNjT76eCoSzrAeh1-S9Bw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=women%20sannyasa&f=false

'The senior Pejavara Swamiji recently gave Sannyasa to a prominent
female political member of the Bharatiya Janata Party. When I asked
the Pejavara Swamiji why he had gone out of the way and given Sannyasa
to a woman he replied, ' She was deeply interested in leading a life
devoted to service in the name of God and she wanted to be initiated
by a Madhva Sannyasi. Besides, she had been asking me since a very
long time.'

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
<lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
> I thank you for providing this information with links to original text. You
> must have worked hard to type those verses. Thank you, again.
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
> lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*
>
>
>
> 2012/3/16 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>
>
>> In the cited Mahabharatha verses there is one verse which informs us that
>> sulabhA was carrying the tridanDa (which she had temporarily laid away
>> during the conversation with Janaka):
>>
>> छत्रादिषु विमुक्तस्य *मुक्तायाश्च त्रिदण्डके*॥ 12-320-19
>>
>>
>> Though the practice of women taking up the paramahamsa sannyasa (with
>> tridanDa) is not encountered today,
>
>
> A wrong conception. That type of saMnyAsa which is marked by tridaNDa is
> not called paramahaMsa-saMnyAsa at all. paramahaMsa saMnyAsa is marked by
> either eka-daNDa or lack of daNDa.
>
>
>> there is evidence in the smRti for such
>> a practice having been in  vogue.
>
>
> Without having vidhi-vAkyA-s to support saMnyAsa of women, it is not
> correct to say that they are allowed by veda-s to do so. Any story which
> has no base in vaidika-dharma-shAstra-s or is opposed to nyAya-s of
> pUrva-mImAMsA is not acceptable.
> Q: Is there any basis for saying that women can't take this saMnyAsa, which
> is marked by tridaNDa and bhixA, etc. ?
> A: Yes. saMnyAsa is meant mainly to shun karma-s and their tools, i.e.
> shikhA, yaGYopavIta, etc. When there is no adhikAra of women in
> karma(according to pUrva-mImAMsA and the popular belief), there can be no
> talk of shunning karma. प्रसक्त एव निषिध्यते ।
> Q: Do you mean that sulabhA was not a bhikshukI ?
> A: No. I'm just saying that if she really did it, she was definitely not
> doing it according to veda-s. She may be following any other path.
> Q: How could you say that ? She is mentioned in an itihAsa, so she was
> definitely a vaidika-saMnyAsinI.
> A: No. As there is no rule that only people following veda-s are mentioned
> in itihAsa, etc. If this is so, buddha, chArvAka, tAntrika, etc. will
> become vaidika.
>
> And please note that the commentary is not showing any scriptural proof to
> support it's view. It is just doing a sort of imagination.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh