[Advaita-l] Purusha and Stree

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sun Jun 3 20:25:48 CDT 2012


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.


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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list