Stree pum bedho na jeevastho deha maatraashrito dhruvam
Tathaapi maataa sarveshaam stree maatram, na pumaan pitaa

(The classification such as male and female does not pertain to the indwelling Jeevi. It pertains to the external body only. Still, it is enough to be a woman (young or elderly, good or bad) to be called a mother to all! But a man is not father to all.)

This Sookti is openly stressing the importance and greatness of being a woman. A similar Sookti was discussed in the previous issue. Apparently there is not much difference between the two Sooktis. It was said in the previous Sookti that a woman becomes worthy of respect by birth where as a man should acquire noble qualities to become worthy of respect. The same message is being reiterated in the second part of the above Sookti also. While discussing the previous Sookti it was said that a being called Jeevi resides in the body that is distinct from the Jeevi. It was also said that it is this Jeevi that travels from one body to another. It was explained that the indwelling being was neither male nor female and that the expressions such as male and female pertained collectively to both the body and the mind. The same theme is being in the first part of the above Sookti. What is novel about this Sookti?

True, the preaching contained in both the Sooktis is the same. The difference lies in the viewpoint. To introduce a new viewpoint, the words Maataa (mother) and Pitaa (father) have been included in the Sookti. A woman qualifies to be called as mother (of all beings) just because of her gender. On the other hand, a man may become father to a few. He does not qualify to be called father of all beings. How can anyone accept this when there is extreme bias in favour of women?

Let us keep aside the aspect of partiality. Is it not the endeavor of the Sookti to indicate the difference in the degree of respect between man and woman?

Respecting the parents is something that the society has forced upon us. In reality, is there any rational meaning behind it? When it is not there, what is so great about saying that a woman is the mother of a few or the mother of all? What is the great loss if a man is does not qualify to be called father of all beings?

If we really want the answer to this and such other questions, we must first try to understand the real meaning of respect. Let us, for a while, keep aside the definition part of it. If we observe the world, if there is someone who is more powerful than us, and if that person uses his power to help us, we naturally develop liking for him. We long to acquire similar powers. Sometimes we succeed in acquiring them too. Even after acquiring such powers, we continue to like them. Such continuous liking is referred to as respect.

We adore those whom we respect. What does adoring mean? Thinking more and more about them. We become delighted when we see them. We long for their company. We yearn to share our best things with them. This is adoration. Every being that takes birth will first love, respect and adore only the mother.

However, in this creation, love is always relative. If we see or get an object that is dearer than the one we have, we tend to shift our love towards the new object. Our love for the first object diminishes. Sometimes, if the first object causes loss or comes in the way of our love for the second object, we may even develop hatred for the first object. It is therefore very much possible that the initial adoration and love that a being develops towards his/her mother may not remain so permanently. Have we not seen men (and women) show more adoration to their spouses? Have we not seen the shift of love and adoration from the mother to one’s spouse?

In reality, a just born Jeevi (being) does not recognize his mother also. The child starts loving only when it understands as to who attends to its needs more. Most often it is the mother. When she says ‘I am your mother’, the child believes her. Later on, with her help, the child recognizes its father. Because it is the mother who attends to the immediate needs of the child, it develops more love for its mother. Later, it develops love for its father too. Gradually, this love takes the form of respect.

What becomes clear from this analysis is that the respect that a being develops towards his/her parents is not because of social regulation. It is more of a feeling arising out of necessity.

It is possible that as the child grows it’s preferences and requirements change. Consequently, the respect developed in the early years may diminish and sometimes it might be replaced by hatred. In such circumstances, the social regulations assert themselves and ordain that the ‘old’ respect should not diminish. Even before the child understands what the society is, these regulations try to enhance the longevity of the feelings of love and respect that sprout in the early years of life. Therefore it is not proper to think that such respect does not have a rational existence.

Very well. Respect has rational existence. An innocent child will respect its mother because it is she who satiates its selfish requirements. The next person who enjoys its respect is the father, who plays a lesser role in satisfying the immediate requirements. But, is it proper to attach so much value to the display of respect or love by the innocent child, which does so more out of fulfillment of its needs?

It is to bestow real value to those early feelings of respect and love that the social regulations have been framed. These regulations ordain that the parents should be respected and worshipped as Gods.

You are trying to create value for something that has no value. Is it a brilliant idea? Is it proper?

We are not trying to create non-existent value. We are only saying that an ignorant infant does not realize the greatness hidden in the feeling respect that sets in naturally in its mind. Over a period of time, it will reach a stage when the respect starts diminishing. In order to prevent such a contingency social regulations have been framed. This is what we are trying to say.

How are able to recognize that there is some lofty aspect in the feelings of an innocent and ignorant child which even the child is not able to realize?

A newborn baby will be, during its infancy, always trying to get its own needs fulfilled. Gradually, along with the desire to fulfill one’s selfish wishes, the tendency to seek truth about things and phenomena also comes automatically. Because the Jeevi came from the pure state of Truth to the ignorant state of life, truth seeking comes to him as naturally as selfishness. Some times selfishness will dominate while at other times truth seeking will be predominant. This goes on in a wave pattern. In this saga of emotions, in one particular point, when the Jeevi ‘sees’ the Truth, the wave motion stops. It is for the benefit of those whose childhood has passed and the wave pattern of life has set in, that our ancestors have left behind a set of rules in the form of righteous code of conduct. The necessity of such a code of conduct cannot be over-emphasized. In the background of this necessity, we should appreciate the loftiness of the concept of respecting our elders.

Mothers easily recognize their children. On the other hand, a father’s knowledge of his off spring is based on belief. Because mothers easily recognize their children, they will tend to develop love quite naturally. Love is something that increases by giving and taking. It is its nature. Therefore, the love between the mother and the child will increase very rapidly.

A grown up person will know that he has not descended from above and that parents are necessary for his coming to this world. If he follows the stream of thoughts in that direction, he will be presented with the question – who were their parents? From where did their parents come… and so on. Finally, the question – ‘who was born first? A mother or a father?’ will arise. In other words, who manifested in the creation first? Female or male? Whom did the Almighty create first? A woman or a man? The same question can be asked in many ways. The issue is same. When human intelligence reaches this stage, it starts limping and will finally come to a halt.
We are not able to come out of the notion that this creation started either with a man or a woman. It is because of this notion that the intellect stumbles and fails to proceed beyond this point.

Svayambhuva Manu, the pioneer propagator of Dharma has discussed this point in the introductory part of his famous treatise – ‘Manu Smriti’. Sage Vyasa has described the same topic in the third chapter of Bhagavata Purana.

In the beginning, the Almighty, remaining in His absolute form, started making efforts to create Jeevis (beings). The beings who were born then were completely devoid of any desires. In the absence of any desire, it was not possible for them to be either male or female. Those great beings who were born then – like Narada and the like, are referred to as masculine beings just for the sake of convenience of understanding. In fact, the aspect of masculinity or femininity was non-existent in creation at that time. Because they too were ‘complete beings’, they did not have any desires. They did not even have the desire that the creation should expand. Therefore, creation did not expand through them.

Therefore, the Almighty, who was a complete being too, evoked desires within himself. In order to hasten the expansion of creation, he cut his body vertically in to two. One piece became male and the other, female.

He named the male aspect as Svayambhoo and the female aspect as Shataroopaa. The word Svayambhoo has two meanings –1. One who was born on his own and 2. One who takes birth again and again. The word Shataroopaa also has two meanings. 1. She who has splendid form and 2. She who creates innumerable forms from within herself.

Let us observe the first meanings of both the words. If a thing (which has no birth) assumes that it is born, then its name is Svayambhoo. Similarly, if a thing (which has no form) thinks that a particular form is splendid and assumes that form, then its name is Shataroopaa. Let us now analyze the second meanings of both the words. If one assumes that there is birth, he will be born again and again. This is the lineage of fathers and sons. He himself is Svayambhoo. When a Jeevi (who has no form) assumes a form, it continues to assume forms again and again. That Jeevi is Shataroopa.

Thus, being born as male and female out of the two parts of the Almighty, who is complete, these beings lose their wholeness. They will even forget how they lost it. Subsequently, they feel that they are not complete. Their longing to become complete takes the form of inexplicable mutual attraction and makes them have off springs. However, wholeness always eludes them.

If it is true that male and female resulted due to the vertical division of the Almighty, and if it is true that their incompleteness caused eagerness to achieve wholeness and if it is true that the eagerness transformed to mutual attraction, and because of mutual attraction they come together, why then do they not experience wholeness?

Is there something wrong in the path they pursued?

No. Even if they try thousands of such paths, they will not achieve wholeness. This is because, in the first place their wholeness was not lost at all! They assumed that they had lost it. This made them pursue it just like one forgets something at home and searches it elsewhere.

Yes indeed. Take the example of an infinite number. Divide it by two. What is the result? Is it a smaller number or another infinite number? Mathematical science can prove that it is also an infinite number. The Almighty is indeed infinite. If it is divided in to two, each one of them will also be infinite. In other words, if you divide ‘whole’ in to two, the result will be two ‘wholes’. Having forgotten this, if the beings strive for ‘wholeness’, by searching for the other half, they will never succeed. They will never achieve wholeness.

If we have lost something inside the house, we should look for it there only. What is the use of searching it elsewhere? If one wants to realize one’s completeness, one should stop pursuing the ‘other half’ outside. If one succeeds in this, the question – "who came first? A man or a woman?" also disappears. It is only when the mutual attraction diminishes that truth-seeking begins. When this process starts, the above question comes up. When this question came up in our discussion, we discussed about Svayambhoo and Shataroopaa. During the course of the discussion, we understood that it was not possible for only either man or woman to manifest first and that with the dawning of discrimination, the feelings of masculinity and femininity will also vanish.

This is the understanding that one gets after seeing the truth. Before achieving that state, when the Jeevi is still in a state when he has feeling of incompleteness, the entire creation will appear (to that Jeevi) as being full of male and female. In order to uplift him from such a situation, our ancient sages replace the feelings of male and female with ‘mother-father’ feeling. In addition to it, they also introduced the not-so-easily-breakable and an invaluable system called marriage.

Maternal and paternal feelings are not completely new to a Jeevi. Neither it is unnatural to him. Therefore, if by some means this feeling is somehow fostered, it can give a decent fight to the feelings of masculinity and femininity. A person who is at the threshold of youth cannot easily appreciate the importance of such a feeling. Therefore, men of wisdom made it a social regulation so that everyone followed it implicitly.

Therefore, it is clear from the above discussion that the feeling of respect has both rational meaning and value.

Very well. Is not such value equally applicable to both men and women? Why then the partiality that one of them is ‘universal mother’? If all women are ‘universal mothers’, why not all men ‘universal fathers’?

This question should be studied in detail and with an unbiased mind. It was explained as to why the sages made it a social regulation to treat the parents with respect. Recapitulate it now. It was done to reduce the feeling of attraction. Why should attraction be avoided? Because it does not confer ‘wholeness’. Therefore, the regulations laid down by the sages can be said to be meaningful only when they confer ‘wholeness’ to the Jeevis.

It was mentioned that the fist man and women were Svayambhoo and Shataroopaa. We also discussed about the meanings of those names. Svayambhoo was the name given to the masculine aspect. Svayambhoo means he who is born by himself. Observe carefully. This meaning suggests that he does not have doership in his birth or for the lineage that comes after him. To support this aspect, even in the world, a male being does not clearly know as to whose father (doer) he is. He understands it through belief only. Still, man feels happy that he has fathered a child and continuously feels proud about his doership. Such pride comes in the way of experiencing ‘wholeness’. Therefore, he should never feel proud that he is a father. To achieve this, he should, on the one hand discharge his duties of a father and, on the other hand, try to give up the feeling that he is a father. It is interesting to note that fatherhood does not entail special respect in the society.

This is not the case with respect to a woman. The first woman is Shataroopaa. It means she from whom many forms manifest. If we observe this meaning, then we can appreciate that the aspect of doership is not readily evident in it. Even in the common parlance, a woman says ‘I am carrying (a foetus in my womb)’ and not ‘I am causing (a foetus)’. This means that despite not being a doer, a woman happens to be a cause for the birth of a being. Because the pride of doership does not afflict a woman, motherhood is more sacred than fatherhood.

There is only one thing that can diminish the sacredness of motherhood. It is the ego. Women succumbing to ego tend to say, "These are my children, not them" and draw a boundary around them. This is self-centeredness. To overcome this, every woman should realize that in giving birth to a baby, she is merely a channel at the hands of the Almighty and that all those who come out of her womb are in fact, the children of God. She should realize that if some of the children have come out of her womb, the rest are their brethren by virtue of them being the children of God. Even the social regulations should be consistent with such an attitude. Therefore, the sages have ordained that all women are ‘universal mothers’.

The age at which you are able to recognize a being should also be the age at which you start recognizing all women as universal mothers. Therefore, our ancient sages have devised a system of worshipping all women as mother. Although both men and women are endowed with equal mental capabilities and equal ability to earn riches, a woman stands to gain by leading a life of a mother. Therefore our ancient sages decided that the progress and prosperity of the society directly depended on treating all women as universal mothers.

It is difficult for men to get rid of their ego and it is difficult for women to get rid of self-centeredness. Therefore, they had to device separate strategy for each of them. We should therefore understand that describing woman as Loka Mata (universal mother) does not amount to prejudice.

This is what this month’s Sookti is all about. Observe its meaning once again.

Stree pum bedho na jeevastho deha maatraashrito dhruvam
Tathaapi maataa sarveshaam stree maatram, na pumaan pitaa

(The classification such as male and female does not pertain to the indwelling Jeevi. It pertains to the external body only. Still, it is enough to be a woman (young or elderly, good or bad) to be called a mother to all! But a man is not father to all.)

Jaya Guru Datta.

Sri Swamiji