hr at ivs.edu
Wed May 22 22:04:09 UTC 2013
Thank you for this information. I may not have given the best variant of the text.
Clearly, as you point out, this statement is literally describing "correct" seeing, rather than mandating a term of address.
That being the case, do we know why and when statements like this were deployed to justify 'mata/mataji' as the appropriate way to address (and think about) a lady, or even a girl in many cases. I wonder if anyone noticed or remarked that this custom was apparently at variance with forms of address found in influential shastras, such as itihasa-purana.
On May 22, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Patrick Olivelle <jpo at uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
> I have seen and translated this or similar verse, but cannot put my finger on it. The issue, however, is NOT about speaking about about "seeing" -- that is regarding. In the verse I have seen the locatives are given as accusatives: mātṛvat paradārañ ca etc. Also the last pāda, as I remember it runs: yaḥ paśyati sa paśyati -- one who sees (this way), truly sees.
> On May 22, 2013, at 4:04 PM, Howard Resnick wrote:
>> Do we know the history of the Hindu custom of addressing women as mAtA or mAtAji?
>> Some Hindu traditions quote CANakya/KauTilya as follows:
>> mAtRvat para-dAreSu, para-dravyeSu loSTravat, Atmavat sarva-bhUteSu, yaH paZyati sa paNDitaH
>> "A pandita is he who sees others' wives as mother, others' property as dirt, all beings as oneself."
>> Yet typically itihasa-purana texts do not show men addressing others' wives, and certainly not women in general, as "mother."
>> Any help with this is sincerely appreciated.
>> Howard Resnick
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
More information about the INDOLOGY