Rejoinder to Lakshmi-nrsimham on Vajrasuchika

[Guest guest]

Dear Lakshmi-nrsmiham

>

> To my knowledge this upanishad was never considered as the one that

> talks about the varnashrama. .......... then it means that this scripture does

not talk about the varnashrama dharmam, but talks about the nature of the

BRAHMAM

 

Rejoinder - Mimamsa teaches the rules of hermeneutics - that is exegesis of

Scripture. One the primary rules of Mimamsa is that we seek out the VIDHI

which is the primary Vedic injunction - it must refer to something that is

to BE DONE in relation to Dharma. The other rule of exegesis is that "if a

particular text has a "primary meaning" (mukhya artha) in relation to the

vidhi - that is to be accepted without further exegesis.

 

Now coming to our beautiful text the Vajra-suchika - the vidhi is quite

clear - CASTE DISCRIMINATION SHOULD NOT BE PRACTICED. There any further

exegetical gymnastics to extracate this text fram varna-ashrama debates is

futile and unwarranted. The mukhya-artha is quite clear - there is no

ambiguous language which leads to an alternative reading. Therefore we need

apply no further reasoning in this Upanishad - simply read it as it is and

incorporate it into your spiritual practice. (sravana, manana,

nidhidhyasana)

 

As regards Brahman - you are quite right all Upanishad texts ultimately

point only to BRAHMAN and what we should do in relation to THAT. Sarvam

Khalvidam Brahma and Tat tvam asi.

 

Adiyen

Daso'ham Sri Ram