Doubts expressed by Swami Vivekananda Final Part.

December 23, 2005

Dear Advaitins,

This is the final part of the aforementioned subject.

I would like to bring forth some more points raised by

him in another lettter to the same scholar. I am also

trying my level best to get the answeres for these

both from books and from the learned men and i am

trying to arrive solutions to these issues by an

unbiased and honest means. I would be greately

indebted if anyone helps me to understand the points

raised as being done by some of the members of the

group who were kind enough to reply. The points raised

by Swamiji are as under.

I have certain questions to put, and you, sir, have a

wide knowledge of Sanskrit; so please favour me with

answers to the following:

1. Does any narrative occur about Satyakama, son of

Jabala, and about Janashruti, anywhere else in the

Vedas excepting the Upanishads?*1

2. In most cases where Shankaracharya quotes Smriti

in his commentary on the Vedanta - sutras , he cites

the authority of the Mahabharata. But seeing that we

find clear proofs about caste being based on

qualification both in the Bhishmaparva of the

Mahabharata and in the stories there of the Ajagara

and of Uma and Maheshvara, has he made any mention in

his writings of this fact?

3. The doctrine of caste in the Purusha - sukta of

the Vedas does not make it hereditary -- so what are

those instances in the Vedas where caste has been made

a matter of hereditary transmission?

4. The Acharya could not adduce any proof from the

Vedas to the effect that the Shudra should not study

the Vedas. He only quotes [(Sanskrit)]* 2 (Tai.

Samhita, VII.i.l.6) to maintain that when he is not

entitled to perform Yajnas, he has neither any right

to study the Upanishads and the like. But the same

Acharya contends with reference to [(Sanskrit)],*3

(Vedanta - Sutras , I.i.l) that the word [(Sanskrit)]

here does not mean "subsequent to the study of the

Vedas", because it is contrary to proof that the study

of the Upanishad is not permissible without the

previous study of the Vedic Mantras and Brahmanas and

because there is no intrinsic sequence between the

Vedic Karma - kanda and Vedic Jnana - kanda. It is

evident, therefore, that one may attain to the

knowledge of Brahman without having studied the

ceremonial parts of the Vedas. So if there is no

sequence between the sacrificial practices and Jnana,

why does the Acharya contradict his own statement when

it is a case of the Shudras, by inserting the clause

"by force of the same logic"? Why should the Shudra

not study the Upanishad?

I am mailing you, sir, a book named Imitation of

Christ written by a Christian Sannyasin. It is a

wonderful book. One is astonished to find that such

renunciation, Vairagya, and Dasya - bhakti have

existed even among the Christians. Probably you may

have read this book before; if not, it will give me

the greatest pleasure if you will kindly read it.

Yours etc.,

Vivekananda

Comment:

I really do not know why Sri Shankaracharya was biased

to caste system. What was the need for that great

teacher of mankind to favour a particular class of

people? Is he the same acharya who gave the beautiful

manisha panchakam?!!

We have to observe that modern teachers of mankind did

to pay heed to this concept at all. The Examples are

Bhagavan Buddha, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa Deva,

Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, Swami Vivekananda whoose

heart was wide enough to embrace the whole of mankind.

Suppose if we assume that the knowledge is attainable

only people belonging to a particular caste then shall

we have to assume that people residing outside india

are not entitled to salvation because there none of

the caste exists?!!

Another poing comes here to my mind. Did acharya had

any other GENUINE MOTIVE as to protect the vedas by

giving it to certain class was people becasue there

was a great danger in its misusal of it, if it was got

by the foreign invaders so has he did these things

because of his feeling that time was not propitious

yet for the preacing of vedas univesally?

Hope these points will be taken from right

perspective. I myself love Shankaracharya very much.

>From childhood i am fascinated by his personality and

the work he did for sanatana dharma and am a devout

studnet of his philosophy. Let me repeat that my

intention is not to criticise anybody.

If the moderators or members feel that i am too

sarcastic in my remarks kindly let me know there will

be no further discussions on this topic.

HARI OM TAT SAT

Yours in the Lord,

Br. Vinayaka.

* Shankaracharya in his commentary on the

Vedanta - sutras, I. iii. 34-37, interprets the

aphorisms to prove that Upanishadic wisdom was

imparted to Janashruti and Satyakama, only because

they were not Shudras, as borne out by actual texts.

But as these texts are doubtful even after

Shankaracharya's explanation, Swamiji wants to be

referred to other similar Vedic texts.

I am adding a conversation of this topic with one of

his beloved disciple which is as under.

........... Thus the talk went on, and gradually

drifted to the topic of Shankaracharya. The disciple

was a great adherent of Shankara, almost to the point

of fanaticism. He used to look upon Shankara's Advaita

philosophy as the crest of all philosophies and could

not bear any criticism of him. Swamiji was aware of

this, and, as was his wont, wanted to break this one -

sidedness of the disciple.

Swamiji: Shankara's intellect was sharp like the

razor. He was a good arguer and a scholar, no doubt of

that, but he had no great liberality; his heart too

seems to have been like that. Besides, he used to take

great pride in his Brahmanism -- much like a southern

Brahmin of the priest class, you may say. How he has

defended in his commentary on the Vedanta - sutras

that the non - brahmin castes will not attain to a

supreme knowledge of Brahman! And what specious

arguments! Referring to Vidura he has said that he

became a knower of Brahman by reason of his Brahmin

body in the previous incarnation. Well, if nowadays

any Shudra attains to a knowledge of Brahman, shall we

have to side with your Shankara and maintain that

because he had been a Brahmin in his previous birth,

therefore he has attained to this knowledge? Goodness!

What is the use of dragging in Brahminism with so much

ado? The Vedas have entitled any one belonging to the

three upper castes to study the Vedas and the

realisation of Brahman, haven't they? So Shankara had

no need whatsoever of displaying this curious bit of

pedantry on this subject, contrary to the Vedas. And

such was his heart that he burnt to death lots of

Buddhist monks -- by defeating them in argument! And

the Buddhists, too, were foolish enough to burn

themselves to death, simply because they were worsted

in argument! What can you call such an action on

Shankara's part except fanaticism? But look at

Buddha's heart! Ever ready to give his own life to

save the life of even a kid -- what to speak of

"[(Sanskrit)]-- for the welfare of the many, for the

happiness of the many"! See, what a large -

heartedness -- what a compassion!

* 2 "The Shudra is not conceived of as a

performer of Yajna or Vedic sacrifices."

*3 "Now then commences hence the inquiry about

Brahman."

for Good - Make a difference this year.

http://brand./cybergivingweek2005/

December 23, 2005

br_vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote:

Dear Advaitins,

Dear friends,

To be honest, in the present day set up of the

orthodox maths, there is a lot of caste ism, prevention of the temple entry by

a particular community. All these things are social issues having relevance at

that level only. These are all man made institutions. The knowledge of Advaita

is not relatable to a particular community, race etc. Even without studying the

texts of the Upanishads, certain great mahatmas have obtained self-realization.

If the Upanishads were the only yardsticks to determine the realization of

somebody, then we have to take it that all the siddhas and the saints of

Tamilnadu are unrealized. So is the case with the great mystics like Mi ester

Echkart whose articulations are highly original. In the days of Bhaghavan

Ramana, there used to be separate batches for the orthodox brahamins and the

non-brahmins, during the lunch session, Bhaghavan being seated in the middle.

Bhaghavan did not advocate the orthodox people to

eschew the tendency for exclusion, Bhaghavan's position having been that all

these things belonged to the realm of the non-self. When a zealous

social-minded devotee was asking Bhaghavan as to why Brahmanism was being

encouraged, Bhaghavan asked that devotee whether he was inwardly free from all

the divisions, whether he practiced equality at home. The point is, apart from

caste-distinction, we are used to a lot of divisions, group ism, distinction

being based on status, wealth, etc, etc, all these things based only on our

erroneous perception of the nature of the Self. But, great sages even though

they did not interfere with the existing social order in the form of these

discriminations, are very catholic in their outlook, which cannot be said of

many who receive the adoration of the public who have no specific teaching

except repetition of the scriptures through TV channels. Sri Narayana Guru, an

enlightened man of the highest order, rose against these divisions and

strove hard to eradicate these social malaises that plague society. Apropos

the text Imitation of Christe, Swamy Vivekananda is said to carry this book

with him always in his wandering days. This is an extraordinary book the like

of which we cannot see in our own writings proving that mere textual knowledge

is not essential in matters high, a phrase used by the revered teacher, Thomas

Kempis. I happened to see a disconcerting thing, which experience I may share

with you. Swamy Tapasyananda was giving a discourse on the gita, the verse

being related to Samadarshan on the part of a jivanmukta who is a real pundit,

such a jivanmukta holding a brahmin, a low-caste, a Buffalo- all these in the

same light. After the discourse was over, I heard two gentlemen talking, one of

them asking the other whether he was taking the food provided in the Ashram,

the other responding how did one know that a person of an inferior caste did

not cook the food ! Swamy Vivekananda's wrath is

genuine in these matters.

Yours

Sankarraman

DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less

December 25, 2005

regarding this issue, i think we also have to take a look on the orthodox side

has to say. for people who can read tamil, they may refer to "Deivathin

Kural" (the voice of God) being the discourses by the Late Kanchi Paramacharya.

there is a whole topic running to a few dozen pages, on "Acharam". we need

to impartially read that and then decide for ourselves.

Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote: