[Advaita-l] About Satyakama
Venkatesh Murthy (वेङ्कटेशः सीतारामार्यपुत्रः)
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 27 23:54:52 CDT 2016
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:56 PM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> The story from the Mahabharata cannot be taken at face value. It is to be
> seen as arthavāda to enjoin loyalty between husband and wife.
> Moreover, It contradicts many shruti passages such as ‘यथा
> मातृमान्पितृमान्’ (बृ. उ. ४-१-२) which occurs over half a dozen times in
> the Brihadaranyaka itself. Shankara says: the one who is tended, groomed,
> by the mother, father and the Acharya is eligible.....The other famous 'mātr
> devo bhava....' also teaches that there is a family system with a regular
> mother, father, etc. that give the apt samskaras to the offspring. This is
> a vedic dictum.
> There is no way one can say that the Jabala episode falls within the
> 'system' that the Mahabharata is alluding to. We have famous Rishi-couples
> such as Vasishṭha-Arundhati, Agastya-Lopāmudra, etc. which have been shown
> as ideals. If it was a norm that women changed husbands such cases as the
> above will have no place in the scripture.
Mahabharata has said -
They used to go about freely, enjoying themselves as best as they liked.
O thou of excellent qualities, they did not then adhere to their husbands
faithfully, and yet, O handsome one, they were not regarded sinful, for
that was the sanctioned usage of the times.
The important question is Jabala was following the ancient custom or
the marriage system of Eka Pati Vrata? If she was following Eka Pati
Vrata it will be very strange because she is not remembering even her
husband. If she had only one husband she could have told 'I do not
know your Gotra but you are son of Rishi X'. But she is not saying
that to Satyakama. We can see also there is not a huge passage of time
because Satyakama is still a boy. She cannot say because of huge
passage of time I do not remember anything.
Therefore we have to say Jabala was not following Eka Pati Vrata and
she was following the ancient custom of no marriage. She lived with
many Rishis and one of them was father of Satykama but she did not
remember which Rishi.
> The BG itself in the first chapter talks about what evil effects will come
> about when women become fallen.
I think the Mahabharata story is saying women are not sinful in matter
of choosing and living with any husband because they follow natural
instincts like birds and animals. Like animals cannot be sinful women
also cannot be sinful in this matter. Men are sinful in this matter
because they are egoistic and think they own the women and they become
jealous of other men. To protect Men the marriage system was made.
> Here is an article on the topic:
> 2016-06-27 16:50 GMT+05:30 Venkatesh Murthy (वेङ्कटेशः सीतारामार्यपुत्रः) <
>> In very ancient times there was no marriage like we have now with
>> husband and wife living together permanently. In Mahabharata itself we
>> hear women in very ancient times roaming wherever they pleased and
>> enjoying. This was allowed by practices of old Rishis even.
>> (Sambhava Parva continued)
>> "Vaisampayana said, 'Thus addressed by his loving wife, king Pandu,
>> well-acquainted with all rules of morality, replied in these words of
>> virtuous import, 'O Kunti, what thou hast said is quite true. Vyushitaswa
>> of old did even as thou hast said. Indeed he was equal unto the
>> celestials themselves. But I shall now tell thee about the practices of
>> old indicated by illustrious Rishis, fully acquainted with every rule of
>> morality. O thou of handsome face and sweet smiles, women formerly were
>> not immured within houses and dependent on husbands and other relatives.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list