Hinduism, Veges etc. (adhikara for upanishads, etc...)

[Guest guest]

Dear Dhyanasaraswatiji,

 

I am sorry I have the tendency to spiral off and start topics that

have no relation to what was being discussed prior to my intrusion. In

any case, since this is an important topic and I believe is within the

scope of the list, we could go on. I don't know to what extent this

has been discussed here, I have read discussions about this in the

advaita-l list, which seems to be much more conservative and so

probably presents a different viewpoint.

 

" SO , ALL ARE QUALIFIED TO STUDY UPANISHADS ( this includes women and

shudras and malechas) if they have a love for Truth! "

 

I don't disagree with you, as such. But we should recognize that there

is an epistemological problem here. Please be open-minded about this.

I am extremely open to the possibility that I am misinterpreting

something here, but I cannot accept that without some clear evidence.

 

The verses in question are Brahma Sutra I-3-34/38. For immidiate

online access we have Swami Sivananda's summary of Shankaracharya's

Bhasya on the Brahma Sutra. Keep in mind that Swami Sivananda did not

believe in caste distinctions, actively denounced them but with great

honesty he relays exactly what Shankara says. We also cannot accuse

him of not knowing the subject matter, the language or intentional

distortion, I think. Of course, if you have access to some other copy

of the Brahma Sutra (maybe even the original), please check those

versions too.

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-3-09.html

 

Let me summarize what is there very briefly. Shankara's purvapaksha

argues that Shudras are allowed to study the Upanishads. Basic reason

he gives is that Shudras have desires and bodies (similar to your own

reason). In addition, he gives scriptural support. In the story of

Ravika and Janasruti, Janasruti is referred to as Shudra and after

several rejections, he is eventually given the teachings. Thus, argues

the purvapaksha, we have evidence from the Upanishads that Shudras are

entitled. However, Shankara says that this is not so because in this

passage Shudra refers to someone in grief and not the literal caste

meaning (he gives some reasons for that obviously). He goes on to

explain that Shudras are not entitled to study the Upanishads because

they do not undergo upanayanam (so varna by guna seems like a poor

interpretation here). Please read the whole passage, I think its quite

clear.

 

Incidentally, Swami Vivekananda disagrees with Shankara's

interpretation here in some detail, including a disagreement with his

fundamental logic. Some time ago I found a blog entry by someone which

quotes a lot from a letter Vivekananda wrote and I knew it would come

handy at some point so I saved the link. Here it is:

 

http://www.medhajournal.com/columns/gangps-column/vedas-are-open-to-

all.html

 

In any case, I suggest this topic be handled impartially and not based

on what we would have liked Shankara to say but based on what he did

say.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

namaskAraH,

 

On 14/06/07, risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

>

> In any case, I suggest this topic be handled impartially and not based

> on what we would have liked Shankara to say but based on what he did

> say.

>

 

Rishi-ji, I frankly didn't want to get involved in this at all. But

since you have mentioned the above, I must ask you: how do you know

what Sankara actually said?

 

All we know is what the extant text of the BSB says. How do you know

for sure that the BSB was written by Sankara? In particular, how do

you know for sure that the said portion of the BSB was written by

Sankara and not interpolated later. There can be many other

possibilities. Maybe Sankara taught his disciples during their travels

across the subcontinent and they made some notes which they compiled

into books later on. Maybe Sankara gave broad guidelines for the

various books attributed to him, and his successors put in the

details. Frankly, all we can do is speculate.

 

The reason why I am saying all this is to illustrate a point which I

think has been woefully missing in many debates on this forum, even on

issues such as samAdhi. The issue is that advaita-vedAnta is a

tradition sustained by a guru-SiShya paraMparA over centuries. There

is a certain diversity within the tradition, in the context of an

overall commitment to non-duality (Atman=brahman). One must appreciate

the tradition with this inherent diversity, instead of trying to

speculate on what Sankara " actually " said. The latter is full circular

logic, as all one ends up doing is presuming Sankara's views.

 

The important point in this whole adhikAra business is not who has or

does not have adhikAra to do this or that. The important point is that

mukti is born of jnAna alone, and jnAna is not subject to injunctions.

The rest is a matter of detail. Two jIvanmukta-s need not have the

same views on all vyAvahAric matters.

 

dhanyavAdaH

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

In any case, I suggest this topic be handled

impartially and not based

> on what we would have liked Shankara to say but

based on what he did

> say

 

Debates such as these can go on ad infinitum.

Christians do the same with the Bible, Muslims with

the Koran...all are free to interpret as they wish.

This must be the case since all DO interpret as they

wish. One group or person too attached to his

interpretation, forgetting that it is his

interpretation, and BELIEVING he thinks only the

truth...well, we see the effect of that all over the

world, twenty-four hours a day: wars great and small,

arguments, ill-feeling toward one another, " I'm right,

you're wrong! " .

 

Fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Hindus think

one way. Others think a different way. And never the

twain shall meet. Neither are right or wrong. There is

no big neon sign in the sky that we can all look up at

and see to discover " THE TRUTH " .

 

I must always be careful that what I think, my

opinions, don't get in the way of basic care and

remembrance that there are ultimately no Hindus,

Christians, Muslims, democrats, republicans, etc.

There are lots of human beings (whatever that may

ultimately be) identifying with isms, ologies, etc.

I've never met a Christian. I've met human beings who

call themselves Christian... " Okay, but I don't see a

Christian standing there!!! " . I see a human being.

" Hi, I'm a Hindu. " , " Okay, but I don't see a Hindu, I

see a human being who professes to 'be' a member of

one of numerous religions. " No matter what people

claim as identity, I can never see that identity.

There are an infinity of possible identifications that

humans can make and none are right or wrong, good or

bad, informed or ill informed...

 

And, of course, all of the above is just from my

limited perceptions. Best wishes, Steve

 

 

______________________________\

____

Shape in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!

http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7