The Recent Debate

[Guest guest]

The 'Swami Vivekananda Questions' and the replies that appeared on the list

set me thinking and I thought I will make some thinking aloud.

 

Both in the questions and the replies that were given, there is a clearly

discernible accusative tone with regard to Shankara and his works. The issues

raised in the debate, I feel, could well be shifted to pre-Shankara literature,

more significantly the Bhagavad Gita. There is that (in)famous 'chaaturvarnyam

Maya srstam..' verse. There is that verse: Maam hi Paartha….paapayonayaH.

Stryo vyshyaaH tathaa shuudraaH te'pi yaanti paraam gatim.' We see here

Bhagavan including stri, vyshyaa and shudraa in the 'api-paksha' that is the

'they-also category'. 'Kim punarbraahmanaH punyaah bhaktaah raajrshayaH There

are the verses indicative of the karma of the four varnas. Their gunas are also

indicated. To a question of Sw.V. on whether caste is hereditary, we get a hint

in the Gita itself: striishu dushtaasu Vaarshneya jaayate varna-sankaraH,

sankarao narakaayaiva…etc. There are particular names to indicate the offspring

born out of intercaste marriages mentioned in the smriti e.g

pulastya. This is not exhaustive of the Gita. Only a sample. Then there is

the 'svadharme nidhanam sreyaH and paradharmo bhayaavahaH' 'Svakarmanaa

Tamabhyarchya siddhim vindati..' In many cases I have not provided the

translation; pl excuse me for that. Pl. take the help of a good translation.

 

In the veda there is the injunction: Sva-adhyayo adhyetavyaH = one must study

one's shaakha of the veda. What is one's shaakha? It has been clarified

elsewhere that it is that branch of the veda which this brahmachari's father

studied, and which in turn his father studied and so on. So, there is a lineage

factor. And then there is the injunction: 'Ashta varsham braahmanam upanayiita

... etc.' specifying in which age a brahmana is to be initiated, a kshatriya is

to be …and the vyshya too. But there is no such mention in the case of the

shudra. And the yajna-adhikara is also specified. Eg. a brahmana cannot

perform the raajasuuya yaga; it being meant for the kshatriya alone. A brahmana

can be a purohita, priest for that yaga. There is no inconsistency within the

veda, to my limited knowledge, regarding the link between upanayana –

vedaadhyayana –yajnaadhikara.

 

The brahmana's karma is specified elsewhere: Adhyaapanam = teaching,

Adhyayanam= studying (the veda), Yajanam= engaging in yajna,

Yaajanam=officiating as the priest in yajna, Daanam=giving gifts and

Parigraha=accepting gifts. As the brahmana was designated to be the teacher,

priest for the other classes, the specification that the vedaadhyayana was

largely restricted to that class, for which a specified living mode/lifestyle

was prescribed, so that the veda, the repository of all knowledge beneficial to

all the people, was protected. Even in the Ayurveda and Jyotishya shastras it

is said that the prescription of these people will be most effective only if

they themselves are clear anushthaataas; those who lived a pure life of

spiritual and religious practices like japa, aahaaraniyama, pure conduct etc.

Perhaps that was the reason behind the restrictions pertaining to the study of

the Veda, 'ShrutiH shrotru-hitaishini', the benefactor of those who seek its

guidance and

knowledge. That the 'custodians' of the veda, the brahmanas, have failed in

the prescribed code of living, misused and abused their position, is another

matter. It is said that veda study brings about vaak-shuddhi. That is, what

is uttered by such a pure practitioner of the vedic study becomes true.

 

Of course, Swaadhyaya in other contexts have been clarified as 'japa of the

upadeshamantra', study of moksha shastra, spiritual books etc. by various

commentators.

 

From my association with venerable masters the understanding that is clear is

that Shankara stuck to the position of the Veda and the Upanishads and the Gita

and other central smritis while penning his works. Somewhere in his bhashya

(members pl. come to my aid) Shankara says to this effect: We are not here to

question why the veda says such and such, but we are concerned with the meaning

of what the veda says'. Surely, Shankara's mission was not social reform. He

wrote the Bhashyam to bring out the Aupanishada Siddhanta as it is. People

compare Ramanuja's and Madhva's large-heartedness and an all-encompassing

attitude and say Shankara was conservative. What does this mean? I do not

understand this. Today, the followers of the Ramanuja sampradaya are called

Srivaishnavaites. The Madhva followers are called Maadhvas. A sizeable

population of these groups live in Bangalore and their practices are no much

different from the smarthas of the Shankara sampradaya. The

adherence to caste-based practices, etc. are indistinguishable. They do not

admit non Brahmins for vedic study or for shraaddha ceremony. About 50 years

ago, it seems that when the Govt. decided to admit those belonging to other

castes for vedic studies in the Govt- run paathashaala, three teachers of the

above three groups resigned in protest. When the wife of one of them questioned

as to how the family could sustain itself, the Iyengar teacher replied: Will

not Perumal protect us? I shall beg alms and run the household! If some people

of other castes were included into the Brahmin caste during the time of Ramanuja

and Madhva (?), such a practice is not witnessed today. Apart from these two

brahmin groups, are there any Ramanuja or Madhva followers?

 

From what I have learnt and observed from the practices of the Ramakrishna

Order which was initiated by Swami Vivekananda, the order of monkhood is not

available on demand, off the shelf to whosoever that wants it. Those who are

first initiated as Brahmacharis (may be caste is not insisted in this) and

undergo a specified period of practices and training and observation by

superiors, are later inducted as monks of that order. All people believe in

certain 'samskaras' to be present in a person to take up monkhood. There is

nothing wrong in that. A friend paid a whopping Rs.6000 some years ago for a

German-shepherd pup. When I expressed surprise at this he said there are pups

of special breeds costing over a lakh of rupees. Higher the pedigree, higher

the price. In horses and cows also this can be seen. What to say about

humans!!

 

It is definitely possible to establish the impeccability of the Vedas and the

Shankara's expounding of the Vaidika sampradaya. But all that will not satisfy

the adamant skeptic. The attitude of the skeptic has been demonstrated amply:

Naasti IswaraH, Apratyakshatvaat. Naayam IswaraH, pratyakshatvaat. The

non-believer says: There is no God. Because such a God is not available for

perception. If God were to make Himself available for such a person's

perception, he would still deny that God. Because such a God is available for

perception !!

 

The questions involved with the Vedas and Shankara are not new. Answers were

provided amply and yet the issues will continue to raise their ugly heads again

and again. These debates are never going to help a true mumukshu. When a True

Guru is obtained, which is itself a punya phalam, daiva anugraha hetukam, and

when he teaches the scriptures, there will be no inconsistencies that trouble

the aspirant. For, a Realised and Knowledgeable Guru, Shrotriya Brahmanishtha,

knows how to present the teaching/subject in a way that is most conducive to the

disciple's requirement and temperament.

 

I am not an authority in the scriptures. The above is my understanding of the

subject.

If there are mistakes, it would be due to my improper understanding and

certainly not the fault of the great teachers and definitely not that of the

Vedas and Acharya Shankara.

 

Om Tat Sat

 

subbu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for Good - Make a difference this year.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v>

wrote:

>

> The 'Swami Vivekananda Questions' and the replies that appeared

on the list set me thinking and I thought I will make some thinking

aloud..........

>

To a question of Sw.V. on whether caste is hereditary, we get a hint

in the Gita itself: striishu dushtaasu Vaarshneya jaayate varna-

sankaraH, sankarao narakaayaiva…etc. There are particular names to

indicate the offspring born out of intercaste marriages mentioned in

the smriti e.g

> pulastya.

 

Dear Sir,

 

I had mentioned in my first mail itself my intention is not to decry

anybody or i have attachment to particular caste or aversion for

another. If you quote gita which is the part of mahabharata in the

mahabarata in the yaksha prashna the question was asked to none other

than Dharmaraja who is supposed to be incarnation of yamadharma

himself. When asked who is a brahmin dharmaraja told that janmana

jayate shudra karmana jayate dwijah ( wordings may not be correct)

Which means that everyone is shudra by birth but one has to attain

brahminhood by his own purushakara or self-effort. Doesnt this appear

in the Mahabarata which is the source of the Gita itself? One of the

monk of particular institution while explaining this point says that,

suppose if one is a great surgeon in some particular field of

medicine and he begets a child does child become qualified surgeon by

birth? ofcourse not. But you can very well say that he will pick up

studies very well and the probability of sucess will be very high.

 

The quote on intercaste marriage cannot be used to say that it meant

heriditory. It can be interpreted as if people of different caste

(need not be heriditory and one thing i also accept that in general

in a particular caste the temperment of the people will be typical to

their profession and caste but there are some exceptional cases who

excel in certain aspects and their temperment will be totally

different)with different temperement are mixed up then there will be

disharmony in the family as well as in the society.

 

 

Why i thought of going for this discussion is many anti-hindu forces

acting in the society take up these points and tell others that

hinduism is nothing but mass of superstition. These are the weakest

points which others use profusely to confuse people. If i am

permitted to say i will tell that this is point mostly used for

converting people(i fear i am going too far from the aim of this

forum but just i would like to mention)

 

Again i will say i have very high regard for brahminhood which has

produced so may great people including my ishta Sri Ramakrishna and

also great sage like Sri Ramana Maharshi. I strongly feel that my

spirit of questioning was mistaken. I had privilege to be associated

with one of the finest minds in this noble caste who were kind enough

to share their valueable knowledge with the general public.

Especially one great person i cannot forget in my life who taught

some earnest seekers including my father great works like Yoga

Vashishta that to with no other intention but out of pure love and

concern.

 

I feel it is better to stop the discussion here and as you have told

let us concentrate on the knowledge of liberation in its loftiest

heights.

 

HARI OM TAT SAT,

 

Yours in the Lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> From my association with venerable masters the understanding that

is clear is that Shankara stuck to the position of the Veda and the

Upanishads and the Gita and other central smritis while penning his

works. Somewhere in his bhashya (members pl. come to my aid)

Shankara says to this effect: We are not here to question why the

veda says such and such, but we are concerned with the meaning of

what the veda says'. Surely, Shankara's mission was not social

reform. He wrote the Bhashyam to bring out the Aupanishada Siddhanta

as it is. People compare Ramanuja's and Madhva's large-heartedness

and an all-encompassing attitude and say Shankara was conservative.

What does this mean? I do not understand this. Today, the followers

of the Ramanuja sampradaya are called Srivaishnavaites. The Madhva

followers are called Maadhvas. A sizeable population of these groups

live in Bangalore and their practices are no much different from the

smarthas of the Shankara sampradaya. The

> adherence to caste-based practices, etc. are indistinguishable.

They do not admit non Brahmins for vedic study or for shraaddha

ceremony. About 50 years ago, it seems that when the Govt. decided

to admit those belonging to other castes for vedic studies in the

Govt- run paathashaala, three teachers of the above three groups

resigned in protest. When the wife of one of them questioned as to

how the family could sustain itself, the Iyengar teacher replied:

Will not Perumal protect us? I shall beg alms and run the

household! If some people of other castes were included into the

Brahmin caste during the time of Ramanuja and Madhva (?), such a

practice is not witnessed today. Apart from these two brahmin groups,

are there any Ramanuja or Madhva followers?

>

> From what I have learnt and observed from the practices of the

Ramakrishna Order which was initiated by Swami Vivekananda, the order

of monkhood is not available on demand, off the shelf to whosoever

that wants it. Those who are first initiated as Brahmacharis (may be

caste is not insisted in this) and undergo a specified period of

practices and training and observation by superiors, are later

inducted as monks of that order. All people believe in

certain 'samskaras' to be present in a person to take up monkhood.

There is nothing wrong in that. A friend paid a whopping Rs.6000

some years ago for a German-shepherd pup. When I expressed surprise

at this he said there are pups of special breeds costing over a lakh

of rupees. Higher the pedigree, higher the price. In horses and

cows also this can be seen. What to say about humans!!

>

> It is definitely possible to establish the impeccability of the

Vedas and the Shankara's expounding of the Vaidika sampradaya. But

all that will not satisfy the adamant skeptic. The attitude of the

skeptic has been demonstrated amply: Naasti IswaraH,

Apratyakshatvaat. Naayam IswaraH, pratyakshatvaat. The non-believer

says: There is no God. Because such a God is not available for

perception. If God were to make Himself available for such a

person's perception, he would still deny that God. Because such a

God is available for perception !!

>

> The questions involved with the Vedas and Shankara are not new.

Answers were provided amply and yet the issues will continue to raise

their ugly heads again and again. These debates are never going to

help a true mumukshu. When a True Guru is obtained, which is itself

a punya phalam, daiva anugraha hetukam, and when he teaches the

scriptures, there will be no inconsistencies that trouble the

aspirant. For, a Realised and Knowledgeable Guru, Shrotriya

Brahmanishtha, knows how to present the teaching/subject in a way

that is most conducive to the disciple's requirement and temperament.

>

> I am not an authority in the scriptures. The above is my

understanding of the subject.

> If there are mistakes, it would be due to my improper

understanding and certainly not the fault of the great teachers and

definitely not that of the Vedas and Acharya Shankara.

>

> Om Tat Sat

>

> subbu

>

 

> for Good - Make a difference this year.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Vinayakaji:

 

The list had many debates on the same issue – the Varna System in

Hindu Religion. ProfVKji has extensively discussed the Varna system

in his homepage: http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

The archives contain all the files related to these discussions.

 

Here is my understandingL

 

At different time periods, the understanding of Varna System even by

great minds such Vyasa, Sankara, Vivekananda varied. In the case of

Sankara, he had twin role: (1) role as a philosopher; (2) role to

rejuvenate the Sanatana Dharma. Sankara divinely wanted to protect

the Sanatana Dharma and he established an Institution to propagate,

preserve and protect Sanatana Dharma. That is why he established four

geographically important locations. At that time, the most efficient

strategy was to ask the `Brahmins' to the responsibility of reading,

understanding and spreading the glory of Vedas. The country at that

time was in a religious mess (chaos) and the Vedic religion was

degenerating and he was rather aggressive in his pursuit to preserve

and protect the Sanatana Dharma. Our problem is to JUDGE the

intention of Sankara in a different time period using the yard stick

of social understanding of 20th century!

 

Vivekananda another great Vedantin has a different vision that suits

the problems of his time period. He truly wanted to spread the

correct understanding of Vedic Religion to the universal population.

He truly wanted to the correct the understanding of Hinduism to the

polluted minds of westerners with wrong notions of Hinduism and

Varna System. He was also rather aggressive in spreading his vision

and understanding of the Vedic religion and Varna System. That was a

different time period and strong misunderstanding on the origin

of `Caste System' were deeply rooted in the minds of the population.

 

I believe that we have not rights or means to make compare the great

minds of different time using incomplete facts and written works of

history. Such debates are odd and fruitless. They just divert our

attention – we can't change the world, let us pay attention to change

ourselves by not making quick judgments and unnecessary conclusions.

In all societies some form of Varna System always exist and will

always exist. This is so because, we have some natural tendencies

(Gunas) and that vary by person and by time! The best strategy for

all of us to recognize that our divine personality is `nirguna' or

our true personality is without any personality!!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: The Sankara Institutions (Mutts) have undergone lots of changes

though they are slow in changing. They have very strong interest in

the preservation of Vedic relgion and many times their behavior

become object of controversy especially in the presence of modern

communcation systems which include free press, television and

internet sites!

 

 

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns> wrote:

>

> Why i thought of going for this discussion is many anti-hindu

forces

> acting in the society take up these points and tell others that

> hinduism is nothing but mass of superstition. These are the weakest

> points which others use profusely to confuse people. If i am

> permitted to say i will tell that this is point mostly used for

> converting people(i fear i am going too far from the aim of this

> forum but just i would like to mention)

>

> Again i will say i have very high regard for brahminhood which has

> produced so may great people including my ishta Sri Ramakrishna and

> also great sage like Sri Ramana Maharshi.

> let us concentrate on the knowledge of liberation in its loftiest

> heights.

>

> HARI OM TAT SAT,

>

> Yours in the Lord,

>

> Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Vinayakaji:

The country at that

> time was in a religious mess (chaos) and the Vedic religion was

> degenerating and he was rather aggressive in his pursuit to

preserve

> and protect the Sanatana Dharma. Our problem is to JUDGE the

> intention of Sankara in a different time period using the yard

stick

> of social understanding of 20th century!

>

> Vivekananda another great Vedantin has a different vision that

suits

> the problems of his time period. He truly wanted to spread the

> correct understanding of Vedic Religion to the universal

population.

 

Dear Ram Mohanji,

 

Namaste,

 

You have come very near to my conclusions by telling aforementioned

points ! This i think is the correct and rational closing point to

the aforemetioned subject. If you observe i have laready made

comments by saying that "there should have been genuine motive in the

acharya's doings. etc."in my postings and i was expecting reiteration

from some of the members of the group.

 

Let me conclude this topic by bowing down to Sri Shankara

Bhagavadpada who is consiered to be lord shiva himself and to whom

the credit of re-establishing the sanatana dharma surely goes without

the slightest doubt.

 

SHRUTI SMRITI PURANANAM ALAYAM KARUNALAM

NAMAMI BHAGAVADPADAM SHANKARAM LOKA SHANKARAM

 

HARI OM TAT SAT,

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri SubrahmanianJi

>The issues raised in the debate, I feel, could well be shifted to

pre-Shankara literature,

>more significantly the Bhagavad Gita.... To a question of Sw.V. on

whether caste is hereditary etc

 

The issue at hand is whether caste is hereditary or as revealed by

the story of Satyakama, the son of Jabala, in Channdogaya Upanishad,

4.1.4, Brahminhood does not depend on birth but on character and

Gunas. Swami Vivakanand found a contradiction in Shankaras logic in

disallowing Sudras from studying the Vedas. The contradiction was as

follows:

 

1) The Swami found Samkara basing his argument against allowing the

sudras to study the Upanishads upon the Taittiriya Samhitia's

rejection of the yajanas (sacrifices) of the sudras - "yajne

`navaklptah (Tai. Samhita Vii, i.6).

 

2)<Quote>: But the same Acharya contends with reference to "athato

brahmajijnasa," (Vedanta-Sutras, I.i.1) that the word atha here does

not mean "subsequent to the study ot 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 Jnanatkanda. It is evident, therefore, that one may attain

to the knowledge of Brahman without having studied the ceremonial

parts of the Vedas. <End Quote>

 

3) Now the Swami found a contradiction in these two statements as

follows:

 

<quote>

 

Thus, if there were no intrinsic sequence between the Vedic karma

kanda (the sacrificial system with its mantras and ritual worship)

and the Vedic jnana kanda (the pursuit of the knowledge of Brahman

without external ritual), then it was "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 same

logic?" Why should the Shudra not study the Upanishad?

 

<end quote>

 

In other words Shudras were not to study the Vedas because they were

not allowed to perform yajanas (sacrifices) per (Tai. Samhita Vii,

i.6) but Vedanta-Sutras, I.i.1 said that one can attain to the Jnana

Kand without performing (i.e. studying Karma Kanda) which was the

contradiction.

 

Subuji you uphold the hereditary position of Sudras by quoting from

the Gita. However Channdogaya Upanishad, 4.1.4 predates the Gita. The

doctrine of Purusha-Sukta of the Vedas also does not make it

heriditary.Also YAJUR VEDA 26:2 and ATHARVA VEDA 11, 14:3, 18 refute

the hereditary basis. So the question now becomes about the hierachy

of authority of the scriptures.

 

The power of Swami Vivakanandas question rested upon the shared

assumption that the Vedas were eternal, infallible, and thus without

contradiction. If the Vedas were primary and one Veda clearly taught

a non-hereditary doctrine of caste, then where could another passage

be found "in the Vedas where caste has been made a matter of

hereditary transmission?" Narendra was arguing that there would be no

other passage- a deduction which was self-evident for those holding

Vedic infallibility.

 

Pandit Mitra could not find any find any support for this hereditary

basis and in his August 17th letter, Swamiji had to remind him about

his questions again.In the same letter, he also clearly sets out his

own viewpoint on this issue as follows that caste "is a social law

and is based on diversity of Guna and Karma".Reminding the pandit of

the questions he did not answer, Narendra probed further:

 

<quote>

 

 

Another of these questions was: Whether Acharya Shankara gives any

conclusion regarding caste based on Gunas as mentioned in Puranas

like the Mahabharata. If he does, where is it to be found? I have no

doubt that according to the ancient view in this country, caste was

hereditary, and it cannot also be doubted that sometimes the Shudras

used to be oppressed more than the helots among the Spartans and the

negroes among the Americans! As for myself, I have no partiality for

any party in this caste question, because I know it is a social law

and is based on diversity of Guna and Karma. It also means grave harm

if one bent on going beyond Guna and Karma cherishes in mind any

caste distinctions. In these matters, I have got some settled ideas

through the grace of my Guru, but if I come to know of your views, I

may just confirm some point or rectify others in them.

 

<end quote>

 

 

Before closing the debate, I will like to present an alternative

point of view which goes beyond the Gita to the Vedas (YAJUR VEDA

26:2 and ATHARVA VEDA 11, 14:3, 18.) itself. This is what Swami

Dayanand Sarasvati (of the Arya Samaj) says in his book "Satyarth

Prakash" THE "LIGHT OF TRUTH".Again my intention is not to hurt any

sentiments but to present the other viewpoint so that a

dispassionate and a nonpartisan student of the Vedas can see both

sides of the coin and form a judgment.

 

Here is the extract:

 

 

Q: Are even women and Shoodraas (low-caste) allowed to study the

Vedas?

 

 

What shall we do if they take to reading? Besides, there is no

authority for their doing so. On the other hand, is condemned by the

Vedas thus - Shruti "Never should women and the Shoodraas study."

 

 

----

----------

 

 

A. ~ All men and women ( i.e., the whole of mankind) have a right to

study. You may go and hang yourselves. As for the text you have

quoted, it is of you own fabrication, and is no where to be found

either in the Vedas or any other authoritative book. On the other

hand, here is a verse from the Yajur Veda that authorizes all men to

study the Veda and hear it read:-

 

God says:- "As I have given this Word (i.e., the four Vedas) which is

the word of salvation* for all making [Here some one might say that

by the word Jana, which we have translated into all mankind, only

Dwijas are meant, as in the Smritis** ( so-called) they alone are

allowed to study the Veda but not women and Shoodraas, the other half

of this verse answers this objection by adding] - Braahmans,

Kshatryas, Vaishyaas, Shoodraas, women, servants, aye, even the

lowest of the low, so should you all do, i.e., teach and preach the

Veda and thereby acquire true knowledge, practise virtue, shun vice,

and consequently being freed from all sorrow and pain, enjoy true

happiness." YAJUR VEDA 26:2.

 

Now sir, shall we believe your word or God's ? God's, certainly. He

who will still refuse to believe, (that women and Shoodraas are

entitled to Veda learning) shall be called a Nastika (an infidel)

because Manu has said, "He is an infidel who is a reviler and

disbeliever of the Veda." Does not God desire the welfare of the

Shoodraas? Is God prejudiced that he should allow the study of the

Veda to Dwijas and disallow it to Shoodraas?

 

Had God meant that the Shoodraas should not study the Veda or hear it

read, why should He have created the organs of speech and hearing in

their bodies? As He has created the sun, the moon, the earth, the

water, the fire, the air, various food and drinks, etc., for all, so

has He revealed the Veda for all. Wherever it is declared (in the

books of Rishis) that the Shoodraas are debarred from the study of

the Veda, the prohibition simply amounts to this that he, that does

not learn anything even after a good deal of teaching, being ignorant

and destitute of understanding, is called a Shoodraa. It is useless

for him to learn, and for others to teach him any longer. As for you

debarring women from education, that only shows your ignorance,

selfishness and stupidity. Here is an authority from the Veda

entitling girls to study:-

"Just as boys acquire sound knowledge and culture by the practice of

Brahmacharya and then marry girls of their own choice, who are

young , well educated, loving and of like temperament, should girl

practice Brahmacharya study the Veda and other sciences and thereby

perfect her knowledge, refine her character, give her hand to a man

of her own choice, who is young, learned and loving." ATHARVA VEDA

11, 14:3, 18.

 

It follows, therefore, that girls should also practise Brahmacharya

and receive education.

 

******

 

 

Q: Should even women read the Veda?

 

 

A. ~ Certainly. Here is an authority from the Shraut Sutra: "(In the

Yajna) let the wife recite this mantra."

Were she not a scholar of the Veda as well as of other Shaastraas,

how could she in the Yajna receive the Vedic Mantraas with proper

pronunciation and accent, as well as speak Sanskrit?

 

In ancient India, Gaargi and other ladies, - jewels among women -

were highly educated and perfect scholars of the Veda. This is

clearly written in the Shatpatha Brahmana.

 

Now if the husband be well-educated and the wife ignorant or vice

versa, there will be a constant state of warfare in the house.

Besides of women were not to study, where will the teachers, or

Girls' schools come from? Nor could ever the affairs of the state,

the administration of justice, and the duties of married life, that

are required of both husband and wife [such as keeping each other

happy, the wife having the supreme control over all household

matters] be carried on properly without thorough education ( of men

and women).

 

 

The Kshatriyaas women in ancient India, used to be well-acquainted

even with the military science, or how could they have gone with

their male relations and fought side by side with them in battle-

fields, as Kekai did with her royal husband Dasharatha. Therefore it

behoves Braahman and Kshatriyaa women to acquire all kinds of

knowledge, and Vaishya women to learn trace, and the mechanical arts

and the like, and Shoodraa women, the art of cooking, etc.

 

As men should, at the very least, learn the science of Grammar,

Dharma and their profession or trade, likewise should women learn

Grammar, Dharma*, Medical Science, Mathematics and the mechanical

arts at the least, for without a knowledge of these, ascertainment of

truth, proper behaviour towards their husbands and other people,

bearing of good children, their proper up-bringing and instruction,

proper management of the household affairs, preparation of foods and

drinks in accordance with the requirements of Medical Science, ( so

that they may act on the system like good medicine and keep the whole

family free from disease and thereby make them happy), can never be

effected.

 

Without a knowledge of mathematics, they can never keep accounts of

their household properly; and without a knowledge of true religion,

as taught by the Veda and other Shaastraas, they cannot know what God

and Dharma are, and can never, therefore, escape going astray from

the path of rectitude.

 

Verily, those parents have done their duty and, therefore, a thousand

thanks to them, who have their best to make their children practise

Brahmacharya, acquire knowledge, and perfect their character, which

al help to develop both their bodies and minds to the fullest extent,

so that they may accord a just and righteous treatment to all -

parents, husbands, wives, fathers -in-laws, mothers-in-laws, their

king and fellow subjects, neighbours, friends and offspring, etc.

 

Knowledge alone is the inexhaustible treasure; the more you spend it,

the more it grows. All other treasures run out by spending, and the

claimants inherit their shares as well. Thieves cannot steal this

treasure, nor, can anyone inherit it.

 

 

Pranams to all

Hersh