SatyakAma's being an illegitimate child a drastic inference

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna, Susharla prabhu,

 

Since there are too many things under discussion, I would like to

proceed one step at a time.

 

You said:

<<<Furthermore, you have argued that one's status as a brahmana is

based on both his conduct and his behavior. SatyakAma was not

conceived after due process of garbhodhana samskaara as brahmins are

supposed to do. The text indicates that his mother did not know who

his father was because she bore him while attending so many other

duties - a nice way of saying that she had had illicit conjugal

relations with more than one man.>>>

 

On what basis are you making such a drastic inference? Which AchArya

with a commentary on Chandogya Upanishad has said such a thing? The

three main AchAryas haven't. (and neither has Baladeva mentioned such

a thing in Govinda Bhashya) Is this a neo-VedAntic perspective on this

issue?

 

The verse from ChAndogya 4.4.2 says -

sA enam uvAcha = She said the following;

tAta, nAham etad veda yad-gotraH tvam asi bahvaham charantI

parichAriNI yauvane tvAm Alabhe = O son, I do not know to which gotra

you belong to. I begot you in my youth when I was very much engrossed

in my household duties of serving guests.

The memory of the gotra tradition is preserved by the male members of

the family and Jabala was very busy in her household duties of serving

guests and gurus that she had not enquired the gotra to which her

husband belonged.

(This is given in the translation of Upanishads as per Ramanuja school

in Anantharangacharya's book)

 

Exactly the same is also said by Shankara in his commentary (available

at http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/upnishad.php3?toption=13). Shankara

also clarifies that since the father died soon after, it was not

possible to know from him now the gotra of the child.

 

I do not have Madhva's commentary, but given his position, I am sure

he is not going to infer what you have inferred.

 

Furthermore, the very fact that as a norm, the name of the gotra is

needed to study the Vedas indicates that birth is the qualification.

Otherwise, it makes no sense for Gautama to even bother to ask the

gotra of SatyakAma. If SatyakAma was not from a brahmana family, he

would never have approached Gautama. His mother would have at least

mentioned to him that being a shudra, he does not have Veda-adhikAra.

She says no such thing - she only says she does not know his gotra.

Gautama also concludes SatyakAma is a brahmana because if he was from

a shudra family, there was no question of his approaching Gautama in

the first place to learn Vedas, unless the shudra tried to get away by

lying about his gotra. But SatyakAma honestly admitted that he could

not find out his gotra, at the risk of being turned away, and thus his

truthfulness showed that he is begotten in a brahmana family.

 

Since many of your notions stem from conclusions based on a lack of

awareness of the commentaries on this episode itself, let us first

sort this out.

 

Yours,

 

Anant

[Guest guest]

achintya, "anantshenoy2000"

<anantshenoy2000 wrote:

 

> You said:

> <<<Furthermore, you have argued that one's status as a brahmana is

> based on both his conduct and his behavior. SatyakAma was not

> conceived after due process of garbhodhana samskaara as brahmins

are

> supposed to do. The text indicates that his mother did not know who

> his father was because she bore him while attending so many other

> duties - a nice way of saying that she had had illicit conjugal

> relations with more than one man.>>>

>

> On what basis are you making such a drastic inference? Which

AchArya

> with a commentary on Chandogya Upanishad has said such a thing?

The

> three main AchAryas haven't. (and neither has Baladeva mentioned

such

> a thing in Govinda Bhashya) Is this a neo-VedAntic perspective on

this

> issue?

 

Ok, I can see this is going to be an issue for you. Let's just start

by looking at the text - any translation of the text. The woman

conceived a child. She could not name her child's gotra. So instead

she told her son to call himself by his given name followed by his

mother's name.

 

Ordinarily a woman who gets married in the Vedic tradition will hear

her husband's gotra at some point. She apparently did not. Nor did

she think to ask her husband what his gotra is. Why not? Was she a

widow? Did she have more than one husband? Or did she conceive out

of wedlock?

 

> The verse from ChAndogya 4.4.2 says -

> sA enam uvAcha = She said the following;

> tAta, nAham etad veda yad-gotraH tvam asi bahvaham charantI

> parichAriNI yauvane tvAm Alabhe = O son, I do not know to which

gotra

> you belong to. I begot you in my youth when I was very much

engrossed

> in my household duties of serving guests.

> The memory of the gotra tradition is preserved by the male members

of

> the family and Jabala was very busy in her household duties of

serving

> guests and gurus that she had not enquired the gotra to which her

> husband belonged.

 

In fact, the text doesn't mention a husband at all. When a guru is

asking what the son's gotra is, the sensible thing to do would be to

ask the husband. If he is not present, then that still raises the

question as to how she could have gotten married and not even know

her husband's gotra.

 

You aren't married, are you? If you were, you'd know what I'm

talking about.

 

The crucial point here is that she could not attest to his ancestry

at all. Satyakama's guru accepted him on the basis of his truth-

telling, not on the basis of any independent confirmation of

brahminical lineage.

 

> Furthermore, the very fact that as a norm, the name of the gotra

is

> needed to study the Vedas indicates that birth is the

qualification.

 

Satyakama never figured out his gotra and yet he was still

initiated.

 

> Otherwise, it makes no sense for Gautama to even bother to ask the

> gotra of SatyakAma. If SatyakAma was not from a brahmana family,

he

> would never have approached Gautama.

 

If Satyakama was in fact from a brahmana family, then surely his

mother would have reassured him that instead of telling him to

introduce himself as the son of his mother.

 

His mother would have at least

> mentioned to him that being a shudra, he does not have Veda-

adhikAra.

 

Unless she did not know, because the men she served were of a higher

varna than she.

 

> She says no such thing - she only says she does not know his

gotra.

 

She also doesn't say, "wait a moment, let us ask your father."

 

> Gautama also concludes SatyakAma is a brahmana because if he was

from

> a shudra family, there was no question of his approaching Gautama

in

> the first place to learn Vedas, unless the shudra tried to get

away by

> lying about his gotra. But SatyakAma honestly admitted that he

could

> not find out his gotra, at the risk of being turned away, and thus

his

> truthfulness showed that he is begotten in a brahmana family.

 

The above makes absolutely no sense. If he was accepted on the

grounds of his truth-telling, then either non-brahmanas lie

habitually and could not be expected to tell the truth (a conclusion

not supported by empirical evidence), or his truth-telling was

itself accepted as a qualification for spiritual life in lieu of

definitive knowledge of his ancestry.

 

We never actually find out what Satyakama's ancestry is, and this

feeble reasoning to the effect that he must be a brahmana because no

non-brahmana would have approached a guru is desperate and

unconvincing. Jabala did not reassure her son that he was a

brahmana, only that he was her son and that she did not know his

father's lineage. Nor was his father around to ask. She even says

that she begot him while in her youth engaged as a servant. Put two

and two together. You don't need a commentary to figure out what it

is she is saying there.

 

K

 

As always, my views are my own. I'm just mentioning that before some

less than ethical person starts spamming the CMS list to the effect

that this is the "Gaudiya interpretation of the Chandogya Upanishad."

[Guest guest]

> If he is not present, then that still raises the question as to

> how she could have gotten married and not even know her husband's

> gotra.

 

>

> You aren't married, are you? If you were, you'd know what I'm

> talking about.

 

You are calling Jabala as woman with illicit affair because she does

not know her (husband's) gotra. Does every legitimate mother know

her husband's sutra? It comes in the same mantra that tells the

gotra of the husband.

 

If Jabala were a prostitute, she would still have her mother's

lineage by tradition as ganikas did. Jabala did not know the gotra

which clearly shows she was married.

 

> Nor was his father around to ask. She even says that she begot him

while in her youth engaged as a servant. Put two and two together.

You don't need a commentary to figure out what it is she is saying

there.

>

> K

 

Only such perverted conclusions can come without proper commentary

(e.g. Sankara). Jabala did not know her gotra because she was very

young when she got married and did not have the maturity to learn

her gotra. When Satyakama is asking her, she is an old widow. As it

is not considered proper for women to tell the husbandd's name, she

did not say her husband's name.

 

Only a brahmana can speak truth without fear even if it communicates

an ambiguous / dishonorable idea. All others have to speak lies at

some point in time or the other at least for the welfare of the

world. Hence bold truth is sign of a brahmana.

[Guest guest]

Dear v_raja_ram (and others),

Humble obeisances.

 

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram wrote:

> Jabala did not know her gotra because she was very

> young when she got married and did not have the maturity to learn

> her gotra. When Satyakama is asking her, she is an old widow. As

it

> is not considered proper for women to tell the husbandd's name,

she

> did not say her husband's name.

 

1) I think v_raja_ram prabhu's comments about Jabala mataji are as

fair an inference as any other.

 

> Only a brahmana can speak truth without fear even if it

communicates

> an ambiguous / dishonorable idea. Hence bold truth is sign of a

brahmana.

 

2) That's true. And there are a list of other lakSaNas also.

*Empirically*, we see that many people from caste-brahmin families

do not possess those qualities. Therefore, there must be other

variables.

 

Janma alone cannot be used as a "convenient" criteria, just because

it is more difficult to measure other qualities (which is Anant ji's

real plea).

 

> All others have to speak lies at

> some point in time or the other at least for the welfare of the

> world.

 

3) And in the name of a similar social convenience (to supposedly

avoid "inevitable" disputes over judgements of character), some

people may also resort to absurd reductionism. That's how I see

Anant ji's argument for using janma as a *decisive* factor.

 

4) One may argue that, even if there are other variables, janma is

still one of them, and cannot be ignored. But here's something to

consider:

 

Janma is a material circumstance. The Vedas seem to indicate a

*different* significance for the *same* material activity,

circumstance, etc in the *different* Phases of Time (yugas, etc).

That is also the reason why yajna-dAna-tapaH is re-defioned in each

yuga-dharma. This morphing of the significance of material

circumstances from one Phase to the next is another argument against

reducing varNa to a physical circumstance *across yugas*.

 

to use an analogy: Among all the variables that go into defining

varNa, the material circumstance of janma is an inferior, dependent

variable, just like "karma" is separated and derogated from the

other 15 that comprise the shoDashakala puruSa.

 

5) In any case, my query is about understanding the nature of

adhikAra required for studying shruti. We clearly see that, both,

asuric and daivi brahmanas had access to shruti, and were very

learned. That's why I'm asking how to understand what adhikAra to

study shruti really means. It clearly requires a *refinement* of

definition, whereas Anant ji is proposing a ridiculous "convenient

reductionism" as a means of bringing the subject matter to an end.

 

Popular controversy over caste can be used as a tool for

reductionist approaches by *both*, socialist neo-Vedanta and also

ignorant defenders of "tradition". The discussion here is about the

nature of *adhikAra*, not a social justification for one or the

other material *arrangement*/system.

 

With love,

Carl

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram wrote:

 

> Only such perverted conclusions can come without proper commentary

> (e.g. Sankara).

 

There is commentary, and there is original text. That Jabala was a

widow who refused to say her husband's name due to propriety issues

is an inference. Such notions are not present in the text.

 

 

Jabala did not know her gotra because she was very

> young when she got married and did not have the maturity to learn

> her gotra. When Satyakama is asking her, she is an old widow. As it

> is not considered proper for women to tell the husbandd's name, she

> did not say her husband's name.

 

Knowing as we do that the husband's lineage (as represented by gotra)

is of such paramount importance in Vedic society, if you are a mother

whose son wants to take to spiritual life and he asks you his gotra,

do you:

 

a) Go through the trouble of asking the husband or the husband's

family what the gotra is,

 

b) Say that you don't know the husband's gotra but to say that he is

the son of (father's name here) and reassure him that this is a

brahmin lineage, or

 

c) Tell him sorry, don't know the gotra, just say you are your

mother's son and not even bother to reassure him about his brahmin

lineage

 

Obviously, choice © would be incredibly stupid in a society that

values the father's gotra so highly. It makes no sense whatsoever for

the mother to not only not know the father's gotra, but also to fail

to tell the father's caste and also to tell the son to identify

himself as the son of his mother. Unless of course, the mother did

not know who the father was.

 

> Only a brahmana can speak truth without fear even if it

communicates

> an ambiguous / dishonorable idea. All others have to speak lies at

> some point in time or the other at least for the welfare of the

> world. Hence bold truth is sign of a brahmana.

 

Even interpretation must be consistent with what is observed to be

true in reality. The idea that only seminal brahmins will boldly

speak truth and others will lie in such a situation is not observed

to be absolutely correct. I have met many seminal bramhins who will

lie when it suits them, and likewise I have met non-brahmins who will

tell the truth even if it embarasses them. This is not to say that I

believe brahmins are liars and non-brahmins are not. It is only to

state the fact that truth-telling is not obviously connected to

birth. Thus your interpretation that he was held to be a seminal-

brahmin merely on the criterion of his truth-telling simply does not

hold water.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla wrote:

>

> achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram@> wrote:

>

> > Only such perverted conclusions can come without proper

commentary

> > (e.g. Sankara).

>

> There is commentary, and there is original text. That Jabala was a

> widow who refused to say her husband's name due to propriety

issues

> is an inference. Such notions are not present in the text.

 

Jabala said that she did not know her son's gotra. Gotra and

husband's name are two different things. What does her knowing or

not knowing her husband's name have anything to do with the gotra of

the husband?

 

The notion that she was a prostitute is as much an inference as the

notion that she was a widow whose husband died young. The former is

a position not supported by any of the commentaries by any of the

great acharyas (and not even supported by Baladeva). The latter is

the unanimous position of all classical acharyas. It requires solid

ground to dismiss what all the purvacharyas have said. History does

not support you at all.

 

>

>

> Jabala did not know her gotra because she was very

> > young when she got married and did not have the maturity to

learn

> > her gotra. When Satyakama is asking her, she is an old widow. As

it

> > is not considered proper for women to tell the husbandd's name,

she

> > did not say her husband's name.

>

> Knowing as we do that the husband's lineage (as represented by

gotra)

> is of such paramount importance in Vedic society, if you are a

mother

> whose son wants to take to spiritual life and he asks you his

gotra,

> do you:

>

> a) Go through the trouble of asking the husband or the husband's

> family what the gotra is,

 

Yes, but only if they are alive. What if they are dead? Shankara is

explicit in saying that the husband had died when the woman was

young, very soon after the child was conceived.

 

>

> b) Say that you don't know the husband's gotra but to say that he

is

> the son of (father's name here) and reassure him that this is a

> brahmin lineage, or

 

Reassurance is necessary only if there is a doubt about the lineage

being brahminical. The doubt exists only in the mind of modern

Gaudiyas, not in the mind of Jabala or SatyakAma.

 

>

> c) Tell him sorry, don't know the gotra, just say you are your

> mother's son and not even bother to reassure him about his brahmin

> lineage

>

> Obviously, choice © would be incredibly stupid in a society that

> values the father's gotra so highly. It makes no sense whatsoever

for

> the mother to not only not know the father's gotra, but also to

fail

> to tell the father's caste and also to tell the son to identify

> himself as the son of his mother.

 

Why should the mother tell about the father's caste if it is not in

doubt? It is the gotra that is of concern here, not the caste. The

uncertainty about caste has been brought in only by modern neo-

Vedantins.

 

Why should the mother necessarily know what the father's gotra is,

unless there is a need for it? It is the parents who arrange the

marriage, not the wife herself. Where does the wife need the gotra

of the husband? The need is generated now by the young SatyakAma's

wanting to know the gotra, but unfortunately, the husband is dead.

 

> Unless of course, the mother did

> not know who the father was.

 

This is a drastic inference. And yes, I am married.

 

Yours,

 

Anant

[Guest guest]

Time is short for me, and so this response will also necessarily be

short.

 

achintya, "anantshenoy2000"

<anantshenoy2000 wrote:

 

> Jabala said that she did not know her son's gotra. Gotra and

> husband's name are two different things. What does her knowing or

> not knowing her husband's name have anything to do with the gotra

of

> the husband?

 

A woman who marries will know the gotra of her husband in the

process. She did not know the gotra which casts doubt on the idea

that she married a brahmin.

 

> The notion that she was a prostitute is as much an inference as the

> notion that she was a widow whose husband died young.

 

I did not say that she was a prostitute. I only repeated what she

herself said - that she had her son while going around engaged as a

servant, and thus did not know the gotra of his father.

 

"Once, Satyakama, the son of Jabala, asked his mother, 'I want to

live as a brahmacari. Which dynasty (gotra) do I belong to?' Jabala

answered, 'My son, I do not know which dynasty you belong to; in my

youth I served as a maidservant in various places and at that time

begot you as my son. Therefore I don't know which gotra you belong

to. My name is Jabala and your name is Satyakama. Therefore you

should say that your name is Satyakama Jabala.'"

 

An objective person can only conclude based on this that she did not

know the gotra of his father because she did not know who the father

was. She was in various places and sometime during all this she begot

Satyakama. Either she did not know the man with whom she conceived

her son, or there was more than one potential father. Both are

offensive to our modern-day moral sensibilities, but what can I do?

The text is pretty clear.

 

The former is

> a position not supported by any of the commentaries by any of the

> great acharyas (and not even supported by Baladeva). The latter is

> the unanimous position of all classical acharyas. It requires solid

> ground to dismiss what all the purvacharyas have said. History does

> not support you at all.

 

What a hypocritical position if ever I've heard one. In other

instances, it isn't good enough for you to say that the Gaudiya

acharyas have taken a certain position on scriptural interpretation.

But when someone challenges something you don't like, you refer to

the opinions of "purvacharyas," by which you mean the opinions of

Shankara, Madhva, or Ramanuja.

 

If it isn't right for Gaudiyas to make sentimental reference to what

their acharyas have said, then it is similarly sentimental for you to

do the same for the acharyas you happen to agree with. We are

discussing what is in the scripture, and there is nothing there about

Jabala having been a young widow, etc.

 

> Yes, but only if they are alive. What if they are dead? Shankara is

> explicit in saying that the husband had died when the woman was

> young, very soon after the child was conceived.

 

Jabala herself says no such thing. If you feel I am in error, please

quote the statement from the Upanishad which says it.

 

When a woman marries, she will find out her husband's gotra. Even if

the above interpolated idea was true, it would still not explain why

she did not know his gotra. So, she was old enough to conceive a

child, but not old enough to remember her husband's gotra? Come on.

 

> > b) Say that you don't know the husband's gotra but to say that he

> is

> > the son of (father's name here) and reassure him that this is a

> > brahmin lineage, or

>

> Reassurance is necessary only if there is a doubt about the lineage

> being brahminical.

 

The reason you ask someone their gotra is to know about their

lineage, Anant. Brahmins will have certain gotras, kshatriyas have

certain gotras, etc. Learn to read the text, instead of reading your

own ideas into the text. If there was no doubt about Satyakama's

lineage being brahminical, then the guru would not have accepted him

on the basis that he told the truth and so must be a brahmin. This is

called using "context clues" to understand the meaning. Look at it

again:

 

"Gautama then said to him, 'My dear son, no one other than a brahmana

can speak such truth that you have spoken. Therefore you are a

brahmana, and I accept you. O gentle one, go and bring wood for

sacrifice.' Jabala replied, 'I am going right now to bring wood.'

Gautama said, 'Never divert from the truth.' "

 

Gautama still never found out about Satyakama's gotra. He accepted

Satyakama because Satyakama demonstrated by his truth-telling (not

his birth or his gotra) that he was a brahmin. Hence, the implicit

doubt was always whether or not he was a brahmin.

 

The doubt exists only in the mind of modern

> Gaudiyas, not in the mind of Jabala or SatyakAma.

 

Which modern day Gaudiyas are you referring to, Anant? I already made

it clear to you that I was representing no one other than myself in

this discussion. Is your position so fragile and desperate that you

must resort to ad hominem and innuendo to shame your opponent into

silence?

 

> > c) Tell him sorry, don't know the gotra, just say you are your

> > mother's son and not even bother to reassure him about his

brahmin

> > lineage

> >

> > Obviously, choice © would be incredibly stupid in a society

that

> > values the father's gotra so highly. It makes no sense whatsoever

> for

> > the mother to not only not know the father's gotra, but also to

> fail

> > to tell the father's caste and also to tell the son to identify

> > himself as the son of his mother.

>

> Why should the mother tell about the father's caste if it is not in

> doubt? It is the gotra that is of concern here, not the caste. The

> uncertainty about caste has been brought in only by modern neo-

> Vedantins.

 

I can see how desperate you are becoming. When you cannot win the

argument on the strength of the evidence, you drop allusions to "neo-

Vedantins" and "modern-day Gaudiyas" to get people to stop

questioning your point of view.

 

We've already shown how doubt about the caste was always implicit in

asking for the gotra. Reread the text above. If you refuse to read

the text for what it says, there is nothing more that I can say

there.

 

You are also conveniently evading the point. The point here is that

in Vedic society, it is the father's lineage that is valued. One's

gotra is always the gotra of his father, not his mother. Hence, if

she could not reveal his gotra, one would think that Jabala would

have at least told her son to introduce himself as the son of his

father. But she did not - she told him to introduce himself as the

son of his mother. This makes no sense for a society that is

essentially patriarchical - unless of course, she did not know the

name of his father.

 

Why would she not know the name of the father? Well, she herself said

it -- "in my youth I served as a maidservant in various places and at

that time begot you as my son. Therefore I don't know which gotra you

belong to."

 

> Why should the mother necessarily know what the father's gotra is,

> unless there is a need for it? It is the parents who arrange the

> marriage, not the wife herself. Where does the wife need the gotra

> of the husband?

 

This should be obvious to anyone who has ever had a Vedic wedding or

performed Vedic pujas. It's a simple fact that the father's gotra

gets announced during such times, and the wife cannot help but hear

it.

 

The need is generated now by the young SatyakAma's

> wanting to know the gotra, but unfortunately, the husband is dead.

 

Nowhere in the text does it say that the husband is dead, Anant. Just

as you do not feel obligated to believe something because certain

acharyas say so, I also reserve the same right. You will have to come

up with reasoning that is less sentimental if you want to convert me

to your point of view.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla wrote:

>

> Time is short for me, and so this response will also necessarily be

> short.

>

> achintya, "anantshenoy2000"

> <anantshenoy2000@> wrote:

>

> > Jabala said that she did not know her son's gotra. Gotra and

> > husband's name are two different things. What does her knowing or

> > not knowing her husband's name have anything to do with the gotra

> of

> > the husband?

>

> A woman who marries will know the gotra of her husband in the

> process. She did not know the gotra which casts doubt on the idea

> that she married a brahmin.

 

1. WHat is the proof that a woman must know the gotra of her husband

while marriage, particularly when she may be only in her early teens?

2. WHat is the guarantee that such a woman cannot forget the gotra of

the husband?

 

 

>

> > The notion that she was a prostitute is as much an inference as

the

> > notion that she was a widow whose husband died young.

>

> I did not say that she was a prostitute. I only repeated what she

> herself said - that she had her son while going around engaged as a

> servant, and thus did not know the gotra of his father.

 

She had her son while extremely busy going on serving people. Another

way to say it.

 

>

> "Once, Satyakama, the son of Jabala, asked his mother, 'I want to

> live as a brahmacari. Which dynasty (gotra) do I belong to?' Jabala

> answered, 'My son, I do not know which dynasty you belong to; in my

> youth I served as a maidservant in various places and at that time

> begot you as my son. Therefore I don't know which gotra you belong

> to. My name is Jabala and your name is Satyakama. Therefore you

> should say that your name is Satyakama Jabala.'"

 

Your translation itself carries the mood that you want to come out of

it. "I served as a maidservant in many places" is one way to

translate it. "I was extremely busy serving people" is another.

 

>

> An objective person can only conclude based on this that she did

not

> know the gotra of his father because she did not know who the

father

> was.

 

No, because your translation itself was not necessarily objective.

 

She was in various places and sometime during all this she begot

> Satyakama.

 

How does the translation necessarily say she was in many places? And

if it did, do you want to say that neither Shankara, Ramanuja or

Madhva had any clue about what it meant, and had ulterior motives in

ignoring a blatantly obvious verse?

 

Who is the first person to have come up with a translation like

yours?

 

> Either she did not know the man with whom she conceived

> her son, or there was more than one potential father. Both are

> offensive to our modern-day moral sensibilities, but what can I do?

> The text is pretty clear.

 

It is not as clear as you put it. Your translation itself is under

dispute.

 

>

> The former is

> > a position not supported by any of the commentaries by any of the

> > great acharyas (and not even supported by Baladeva). The latter

is

> > the unanimous position of all classical acharyas. It requires

solid

> > ground to dismiss what all the purvacharyas have said. History

does

> > not support you at all.

>

> What a hypocritical position if ever I've heard one. In other

> instances, it isn't good enough for you to say that the Gaudiya

> acharyas have taken a certain position on scriptural

interpretation.

 

The trouble there comes since they have no commentaries on shrutis

and they end up contradicting it. That is the problem with it.

 

> But when someone challenges something you don't like, you refer to

> the opinions of "purvacharyas," by which you mean the opinions of

> Shankara, Madhva, or Ramanuja.

 

And for valid reasons - you are saying that the verse itself is so

clear that there isn't even a commentary required on it. Yet all

three acharyas have commented on it (so they had no knowledge of

basic Sanskrit? They had ulterior motives?), and it also finds its

place in the Brahma Sutras.

 

>

> If it isn't right for Gaudiyas to make sentimental reference to

what

> their acharyas have said, then it is similarly sentimental for you

to

> do the same for the acharyas you happen to agree with. We are

> discussing what is in the scripture, and there is nothing there

about

> Jabala having been a young widow, etc.

 

What is in the scripture is not so clear as it appears to you, since

you have already determined that to be the purport, and it is hence

obvious to you.

 

>

> > Yes, but only if they are alive. What if they are dead? Shankara

is

> > explicit in saying that the husband had died when the woman was

> > young, very soon after the child was conceived.

>

> Jabala herself says no such thing. If you feel I am in error,

please

> quote the statement from the Upanishad which says it.

 

I was the one who quoted it with the Sanskrit in a prior mail.

 

>

> When a woman marries, she will find out her husband's gotra. Even

if

> the above interpolated idea was true, it would still not explain

why

> she did not know his gotra. So, she was old enough to conceive a

> child, but not old enough to remember her husband's gotra? Come on.

 

Why not? What is so incredulous about it wheh she has also told the

reason that she was always busy serving many guests, and had no time

to have proper discussions about the family of her in-laws.

 

>

> > > b) Say that you don't know the husband's gotra but to say that

he

> > is

> > > the son of (father's name here) and reassure him that this is a

> > > brahmin lineage, or

> >

> > Reassurance is necessary only if there is a doubt about the

lineage

> > being brahminical.

>

> The reason you ask someone their gotra is to know about their

> lineage, Anant.

 

Yes, but when only the gotra aspect of the lineage is under question,

and not the lineage itself being brahminical, why should an assurance

about the lineage being brahminical be needed?

 

Brahmins will have certain gotras, kshatriyas have

> certain gotras, etc. Learn to read the text, instead of reading

your

> own ideas into the text. If there was no doubt about Satyakama's

> lineage being brahminical, then the guru would not have accepted

him

> on the basis that he told the truth and so must be a brahmin.

 

There was no doubt about it for the mother (not the guru), which is

why she did not have to reassure the child. On the other hand, if

their lineage was shudra, you would expect her first to tell the

child that shudras are not supposed to study Vedas. The guru

obviously would need some indication about the lineage being

brahminical. The indication was that Satyakama honestly admitted that

his mother did not know the gotra since she was always busy serving

guests (and it is understood that the father would have died,

otherwise he would have been there with the child and the mother). If

Satyakama was a shudra, deliberate on getting access to Vedas, he

would have concocted a gotra like Karna, instead of being so honest

about it. The guru was pleased by it, convinced that he was a

brahmana.

 

This is

> called using "context clues" to understand the meaning. Look at it

> again:

>

> "Gautama then said to him, 'My dear son, no one other than a

brahmana

> can speak such truth that you have spoken. Therefore you are a

> brahmana, and I accept you. O gentle one, go and bring wood for

> sacrifice.' Jabala replied, 'I am going right now to bring wood.'

> Gautama said, 'Never divert from the truth.' "

>

> Gautama still never found out about Satyakama's gotra. He accepted

> Satyakama because Satyakama demonstrated by his truth-telling (not

> his birth or his gotra) that he was a brahmin.

 

Perfect. That is what I am saying.

 

> Hence, the implicit

> doubt was always whether or not he was a brahmin.

>

> The doubt exists only in the mind of modern

> > Gaudiyas, not in the mind of Jabala or SatyakAma.

>

> Which modern day Gaudiyas are you referring to, Anant?

 

Yourself, and others in ISKCON who give such interpretations that

have no precedent.

 

I already made

> it clear to you that I was representing no one other than myself in

> this discussion. Is your position so fragile and desperate that you

> must resort to ad hominem and innuendo to shame your opponent into

> silence?

 

Your position cannot be considered apart from history, since we are

not discussing metaphysics here. In the days when this Upanishad was

seriously read and preserved, what did people follow? Were there

conflicts about its interpretation? SInce there weren't, how can you

come up today and say that yours is the true meaning?

 

> > Why should the mother tell about the father's caste if it is not

in

> > doubt? It is the gotra that is of concern here, not the caste.

The

> > uncertainty about caste has been brought in only by modern neo-

> > Vedantins.

>

> I can see how desperate you are becoming. When you cannot win the

> argument on the strength of the evidence, you drop allusions

to "neo-

> Vedantins" and "modern-day Gaudiyas" to get people to stop

> questioning your point of view.

 

I have already indicated this above. Your position cannot be taken

independent of historical facts, because adhikAra for Veda is not a

metaphysical issue that can be hammered out like a mathematical

proof. How society was in the days when the Upanishad was practiced

is most relevant, and it seriously weakens your case that history

does not reveal any precedent for your interpretation (unless you

bring up one), and that all the three main acharyas, and the Brahma

Sutras have rejected the modern-day ISKCON position on Veda-adhikAra.

 

>

> We've already shown how doubt about the caste was always implicit

in

> asking for the gotra.

 

That may be, but when a person honestly tells you that his mother has

told him to say ..... because she never had the time to find out

and/or remember his gotra because of being preoccupied, and the

father is dead (else he would have accompanied his son) then there is

strong reason to suggest that the child should be a brahmin, for he

is telling the truth in spite of the fact that there would be

sufficient grounds not to take him as a student.

 

Reread the text above. If you refuse to read

> the text for what it says, there is nothing more that I can say

> there.

 

If you refuse to see that your translation already imposes your

interpretation on it, then there is nothing more I can say there.

 

>

> You are also conveniently evading the point. The point here is that

> in Vedic society, it is the father's lineage that is valued. One's

> gotra is always the gotra of his father, not his mother. Hence, if

> she could not reveal his gotra, one would think that Jabala would

> have at least told her son to introduce himself as the son of his

> father. But she did not - she told him to introduce himself as the

> son of his mother. This makes no sense for a society that is

> essentially patriarchical - unless of course, she did not know the

> name of his father.

 

There are several issues here -

1. Can she pronounce the name of her husband even if she knew it? Was

it appropriate to do so?

2. What is the point in introducing himself in the name of the father

when the father is dead, and someone the guru didn't know? The name

of the mother would attach the child to his living mother.

 

>

> Why would she not know the name of the father? Well, she herself

said

> it -- "in my youth I served as a maidservant in various places and

at

> that time begot you as my son. Therefore I don't know which gotra

you

> belong to."

>

> > Why should the mother necessarily know what the father's gotra

is,

> > unless there is a need for it? It is the parents who arrange the

> > marriage, not the wife herself. Where does the wife need the

gotra

> > of the husband?

>

> This should be obvious to anyone who has ever had a Vedic wedding

or

> performed Vedic pujas. It's a simple fact that the father's gotra

> gets announced during such times, and the wife cannot help but hear

> it.

 

It also depends on the type of marriage. There are seven types of

marriages. Further, even if she heard it, she has to remember it.

 

 

>

> The need is generated now by the young SatyakAma's

> > wanting to know the gotra, but unfortunately, the husband is

dead.

>

> Nowhere in the text does it say that the husband is dead, Anant.

Just

> as you do not feel obligated to believe something because certain

> acharyas say so, I also reserve the same right.

 

But you have not quote any acharyas, even from your own Gaudiya

tradition, who said all this before the notion of social reform

started in India where brahmins started being condemned for it.

 

You will have to come

> up with reasoning that is less sentimental if you want to convert

me

> to your point of view.

>

 

And you would have to come up with reasoning that conforms to the

Brahma Sutras to convince me.

 

Yours,

 

Anant

[Guest guest]

achintya, "anantshenoy2000"

<anantshenoy2000 wrote:

 

> > A woman who marries will know the gotra of her husband in the

> > process. She did not know the gotra which casts doubt on the idea

> > that she married a brahmin.

>

> 1. WHat is the proof that a woman must know the gotra of her

husband

> while marriage, particularly when she may be only in her early

teens?

 

You don't need proof to prove what is known by common sense. A woman

who marries in the Vedic fashion will hear her husband's gotra

several times - in the marriage itself and in the subsequent pujas

she and her husband performs. I would assume you would know that if

you truly are married and perform traditional worship.

 

> 2. WHat is the guarantee that such a woman cannot forget the gotra

of

> the husband?

 

You also don't need to invoke other explanations in order to fit a

round peg into a square hole. "She didn't know her son's gotra

because she forgot it." Oh... really? And where exactly in the text

did she say that? She didn't. Her explanation for not knowing the

gotra was that she conceived her son while going around in various

places. Translate it however you like, my esteemed professor of

Sanskrit. But there is nothing in there about having "forgotten the

husband's gotra" or of "being a widow" or any of the other

explanations you would have us believe are the obviously correct

ones.

 

The rest of your posting is just degenerating into another ill-

tempered, anti-Gaudiya rant, and I for one am too busy to continue

going in circles. You don't believe Gaudiya ideas on the strength of

the opinions of Gaudiya acharyas, but you want us to believe your

ideas on the strength of your favorite acharyas.

 

I'm not representing anyone other than myself, a fact which I pointed

out to you and which you would just accept if you could exercise even

a modicum of intellectual honesty. In so doing, I have pointed out

only what is in the text, namely that Satyakama had no proof of his

brahminical birth. This was supposed to be a discussion of what is in

the *text* - and you have forfeit the debate because you cannot

defend your position on the basis of what is in the text or even on

the basis of logical deductions made from what is in the text. If you

were objective, you would acknowledge the problems your

interpretations face, but you cannot do that, because your agenda

(contrary to your claims) is very much centered around refuting

Gaudiya siddhanta and promoting Tattvavada.

 

Well, you can promote and refute to your heart's content, but I'm

interested in the truth, independent of anyone's sectarian point of

view. All you have proven is that you have sectarian interpretations

available at your disposal, but you are far from convincing me that

they are the obviously correct ones.