>Mam hi pArtha vypAstritya
>Ye 'pi syuh pApayonayah
>StrIyo vaisyAs tathA sUdrAs
>te 'pi yAnti parAm gatim
which, was translated by Swami Chinmayananda as:
>"For taking refuge in me, they also, who, O Partha, may be of a sinful
>birth - women, vaisyas as well as sudras - they even attain
>the supreme goal."
Sri Srinivas Nagulapalli writes:
>The pitiable present predicament of us, where women are ill-treated, poor
>are suppressed, and the cries and tears of helpless, homeless children are
>ignored- would not have happened, atleast we would not have come to the
>degrading depths of dehumanizing our own species, if we atleast had the
>strength to remember even a little of that ancient message that the Divinity
>dwells in everyone and not just in the altars of chosen temples.
My question: Is it POSSIBLE that the writer of the aforementioned Sloka
is to some (ANY) extent responsible for the ill-treatment of women or
Sudras, because, after all, a literal translation of his words proclaims
that these parties are sinners (albeit not beyond salvation)? If a
feminist WERE to write (NONE does, to the extent I am aware, although
such things are often attributed to them):
"magavaaru paapaatmulu;
vaaru chastE gaani ee samaajam baagu paDadu"
while actually meaning that it's not magavaaru, but "paapams such as
kaTnaalu" (my present focus is not this issue, so let's not get
distracted into justifying the dowry system) should be killed, wouldn't
you call it a poor choice of words at best? Wouldn't you say such
statements COULD instigate an occasional zealot into reforming the
society by killing men? Especially if the writer of such a statement is
as revered as the writer of the Slokam above?
The only link I can find between this discussion and (Telugu) saahityam
is the choice of language to communicate the content accurately. Why
MUST a responsible writer choose words that leave tremendous room for
misunderstanding, when the relatively unwise (like me, for instance) can
easily appreciate the RIGHT interpretation (as for instance, that of
Sree naagulapalli), and in a different sense would appreciate even more
if the original writer had said plainly what is claimed to have been
said?
At the risk of offending Sree seetaraamayya gaaru into not getting me
the books he recently offered to get, I would say this: His choice of
using the word insane for vyaasa may have been poor. But he made sure
to consider mitigating circumstances, such as the possibility that the
times were insane - a time when metaphors such as "women, vaiSyaas and
Soodraas that are sinful by birth" are accepted as reasonable means
justified by a spiritual end.
I can't help noticing that we still accept that poor choice of metaphor!
Why can't we criticize ourselves, our forefathers, and our heritage,
when they are called into question? Does (constructive) criticism of
our heritage mean we disown it?
Regards,
vENu
PS: I followed up sadaananda gaaru's follow up to seetaraamayya garu's
original posting on SCIT only, but with so many follow ups directed to
telusaa, I couldn't help this. Perhaps, we should move the non-literary
aspects of this discussion into SCIT or perhaps even SCI?
--
Venu Dasigi
Till 8/27/96: Intelligent Systems Section
Computer Science and Math Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, MS-6364, P.O. Box 2008
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6364
vdasigi@mars.epm.ornl.gov
Later: Department of Computer Science and Information Technology
Sacred Heart University, 5151 Park Ave
Fairfield, CT 06432-1000
dasigi@shu.sacredheart.edu
dasigiv@sacredheart.edu