[Advaita-l] Women and Paramahamsa sannyasa

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

I dont have yatidharmaprakAsha.
And, please note that I'm opposed to only a specific type of saMnyAsa for
women. And, the verse hinted by you faces the same fate as mahAbhArata
verses in my view for given causes.
Another thing, yatidharmaprakAsha is not a smRRiti, so it must borrow it's
validity from other texts.
On Mar 17, 2012 9:42 AM, "Kathirasan K" <brahmasatyam at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste ji,
>
> I have encountered a verse from the Yatidharmaprakasha of vasudevashrama
> that cites women's eligibility for Sannyasa. The verse number is 61.8.
> However I don't have copy of the text with me right now. It would be great
> if anyone chould check this up. Thanks.
>
> Kathirasan
>
>
> 2012/3/17 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com>
>
> > *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
> > lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 21:25, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
> > svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Not to nitpick, but note that there is a lot of variability in what
> > > different sources
> > > mean by the term paramahaMsa saMnyAsa.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, you are correct in saying that different sources define the term
> > paramahaMsa differently.
> > But, I was opposing the view according to definitions of
> > paramahaMsopaniShat and shrI-vidyAraNya. And it was the view which shrI
> V.
> > Subrahmanian was considering while talking, I think. So, my oppositions
> > holds good here.
> > Moreover, I've not seen any shruti or smR^iti defining paramahaMsa-s as
> > tri-daNDI-s. I've seen refutation of this view in a few commentaries of
> > smR^iti-s.
> >
> >
> > >  > > 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.
> > >
> > > The correct pUrva mImAMsA approach to this is to ask if there is a
> > specific
> > > vaidika nishedha that prohibits women from taking saMnyAsa. This is
> very
> > > different from looking for a vidhi supporting saMnyAsa for women.
> >
> >
> > Even unavailability of niShedha is not needed to bar women from saMnyAsa.
> > Why ?
> > Because, women can't shun karma.
> > Why ?
> > Because, they are not in possession of karma. By karma I mean vaidika
> karma
> > here.
> > There is no need to shun laukika karma with prAjApatyeShTi and virajA
> homa.
> > The karma which was received with vidhi is to be shunned with vidhi in
> > order to avoid pratyavAya. laukika-karma-s are not prescribed with vidhi.
> > So, as soon as need or desire goes, one is seen to leave them without
> being
> > subject to any pratyavAya.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>