sanatana dharma has nothing to do with caste

139 views
Skip to first unread message

Aravinda Rao

unread,
May 31, 2026, 1:12:55 AM (4 days ago) May 31
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaskars,
Sanatana dharma is equated with caste even by the educated people. It is an ignorant accusation because the Hindu texts have only talked about diversity in creation which is universal. It talked about creation of 4 varnas but not 4000 castes. Castes evolved due to social needs. My recent videos explain the position of Hindu texts. I have emphatically challenged and said that Hinduism has not created Castes. Kindly see the videos as they relate to the most serious blame on Hinduism and inform if there is any mention of creation of Castes anywhere. 




Namaskars, 
Dr. Aravinda Rao K

Ramanath Pandey

unread,
May 31, 2026, 6:48:09 AM (4 days ago) May 31
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Deasr Prof Rao



Sanatana Dharma is fundamentally based not on caste, but on dharma (righteousness), truth, compassion, self-development, and the realization of the Divine. Its principal scriptures associate a person's spiritual standing not with birth, but with one's qualities, actions, and conduct. Therefore, the eternal principles of Sanatana Dharma are rooted in the equality of all souls and the recognition of divinity in all beings, rather than in caste-based discrimination.

At the same time, it is also true from a historical perspective that the caste system has been a long-standing social reality in Indian society and has often been closely associated with religion. Therefore, while it may be valid from a philosophical or spiritual standpoint to say that "Sanatana Dharma has nothing to do with caste," the issue is more complex when viewed through a historical and sociological lens.

In summary:

At the spiritual level: The soul is neither defined nor limited by caste or birth.

At the socio-historical level: The caste system has been an influential institution in Indian society and, at various times, has been supported or justified through religious interpretations.

A balanced conclusion would be:

"The core message of Sanatana Dharma is the unity of the soul, righteous living, and moral excellence. Caste is not an essential spiritual principle of Sanatana Dharma, but rather a historical and social institution that developed within Indian society over time."


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAGwUMpSnJhdTe%3DY7stn9uHmQph61JE2KS0BX7DWdnfYhREQjig%40mail.gmail.com.

Aravinda Rao

unread,
Jun 2, 2026, 12:24:58 AM (yesterday) Jun 2
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Dear Prof.Ramanath ji, 
Namaskars, Thank you for sparing your time to see the videos and comment..
It is very unfortunate that most educated people accept the unfounded comments of those who equate sanatana dharma with caste. This becomes the cause for hatred. It is also unfortunate that our religious leaders never bother to clarify the position of our scriptures and guide the people from time to time. When we see the Mahabharata or Srimad Bhagavatam, we find several stories which are in the nature of a self-correcting mechanism with the real spirit of dharma. For instance, the Nahusha episode to talk about who a brahmin is, or the story of Prachinabarhi and Narada about slaughter of animals during yajna-s. Vyasa appears to be a great reformer in several places. It is sad to see that such a self-correcting mechanism has failed while it is being destroyed by wrong narratives too.
Regards,
Dr. Aravinda Rao
(btw I am not a professor but a retired government officer having interest in Upanishadic studies. I have been teaching Vedanta for the last 13 years on the advaita academy website) 

Ramanath Pandey

unread,
Jun 2, 2026, 12:04:51 PM (yesterday) Jun 2
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Reflections on Sanatana Dharma and Humanity

Dear Dr. Aravinda Rao ji,

Namaskars.

Thank you for your thoughtful message and for sharing your reflections. I greatly appreciate your observations regarding the self-correcting spirit present in our scriptural traditions. As you rightly point out, episodes such as Nahusha's discourse on the true nature of a Brahmin and Narada's guidance to King Prachinabarhi regarding ritual animal sacrifice illustrate that our sacred texts have consistently encouraged ethical reflection, reform, and a deeper understanding of dharma.

It is indeed unfortunate that many contemporary discussions reduce Sanatana Dharma merely to the issue of caste, overlooking its profound philosophical, ethical, and spiritual dimensions. Equally regrettable is the fact that the universal and corrective teachings embedded in our scriptures are often not sufficiently highlighted, allowing misconceptions and divisive narratives to flourish.

In my humble understanding, the essence of what is truly "Sanātana" is not confined to any particular religion, community, or historical tradition. Rather, it is rooted in eternal human values such as truth, compassion, non-violence, forgiveness, and mutual respect.

Interestingly, both Hindu and Buddhist traditions use the expression "Sanātana Dharma" or "eternal law" in this universal sense.

The Dhammapada (Yamakavagga, verse 5) declares:

"Na hi verena verāni, sammantīdha kudācanaṃ;
Averena ca sammanti, esa dhammo sanantano."

"Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world; it is appeased only by non-hatred (love and forgiveness). This is the eternal law (Sanātana Dharma)."

Similarly, Manusmṛti (4.138) teaches:

"Satyaṃ brūyāt priyaṃ brūyān na brūyāt satyam apriyam;
Priyaṃ ca nānṛtaṃ brūyād eṣa dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ."

"Speak the truth; speak it pleasantly. Do not speak an unpleasant truth merely to hurt others, nor speak a pleasant falsehood. This is the eternal dharma."

What is remarkable is that both these texts identify Sanātana Dharma not with a particular social identity, ritual, or sectarian affiliation, but with universal ethical principles governing human conduct. Love over hatred, truth tempered with kindness, and harmony over conflict are presented as eternal values.

Therefore, in my view, any religion—whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, or any other—may be regarded as embodying the spirit of Sanātana Dharma when it upholds these universal human values. Whenever religion nurtures compassion, truth, justice, and respect for fellow beings, it reflects the eternal principles that sustain humanity. Conversely, when it becomes a source of hatred, exclusion, or violence, it departs from its own highest ideals.

The great wisdom traditions of the world may differ in doctrine and practice, yet they converge in their aspiration to elevate human consciousness and promote harmony. Humanity itself, therefore, is the common ground upon which authentic spirituality stands.

Thank you also for your dedicated work in the study and teaching of Advaita Vedanta. I look forward to continuing this enriching dialogue.

With warm regards,

Dr. Ramanath Pandey


Rajaram Krishnamurthy

unread,
Jun 2, 2026, 11:42:49 PM (23 hours ago) Jun 2
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com, Chittanandam V R, YM, Dr Sundar, Ravi mahajan, Venkat Giri, SRIRAMAJAYAM, APS Mani, Rangarajan T.N.C., Srinivasan Sridharan, Mathangi K. Kumar, Venkat Raman, Rama, thatha patty, Sanathana group, Kerala Iyer
Iniya ulavaga innadha kooral kaniyiruppak kay kavardhntru  Inna seidarai oruthal avar naana nanayam seidu vidal  K R IRS 3626

लोकेश

unread,
12:14 AM (23 hours ago) 12:14 AM
to bhAratIya-vidvat-pariShad भारतीय-विद्वत्परिषद्
Dear Dr. Aravinda Rao K

I appreciate the motivation with which you have created these videos. It is very unfortunate that Hinduism is equated with caste in the mainstream. You mentioned that it is a propaganda. I would like to disagree with you on this. Even today we have high regarded people within Hinduism that actively advocate for birth based varnas and do so based on our scriptures. Our first priority should be to answer them before going out and say this is all a propaganda. 

Any how thats a different topic. I was watching the video and came across your interpretation of Manusmriti 2.148


In video 2 you mentioned that as per this verse Acharya first used to test a child and based on his qualities, used to assign him the appropriate varna. When reading the verse I couldn't find any such meaning. Could you clarify how did you interpret this? 

आचार्यस्त्वस्य यां जातिं विधिवद् वेदपारगः ।
उत्पादयति सावित्र्या सा सत्या साऽजराऽमरा ॥ १४८ ॥

But the “birth” (upanayanam) which the Preceptor, well-versed in the Veda, brings about for him, in the lawful manner, by means of the Sāvitrī,—that is real, imperishable, immortal.—(148)

Kind regards 

Abhishek Mehta

unread,
12:37 AM (22 hours ago) 12:37 AM
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
How did you get the meaning of upanayanam in the verse?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

Rajaram Krishnamurthy

unread,
12:50 AM (22 hours ago) 12:50 AM
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘birth’ that the Boy obtains from his Preceptor is however indestructible. When the Veda has been got up and its meaning duly comprehended, then alone is one enabled to perform religious acts, by which he obtains Heaven and Final Release; and since all this is due to the Preceptor, he is superior.

That birth which the Preceptor brings about’—i.e., the sacramental rite called ‘Upanayana’ ‘initiation,’ which is called the ‘second birth,’ which he accomplishes—‘by means of the Sāvitrī’—i.e., by the expounding of it;—‘that’—birth—‘imperishable, immortal.’ Though all these words mean the same thing, yet they have been used with a view to pointing out that the ‘birth’ named ‘Initiation’ is superior to that which one obtains from his mother. As a matter of fact, ‘perishing’ and ‘death’ are not possible for ‘birth,’ as they are in the case of living beings; if mere ‘indestructibility’ were meant, this could have been expressed by means of a single word; and yet this is not what is done (which shows that the meaning is as explained above).

The construction of the sentence is as follows:—‘Vedapāraga ācāryo yāñjātim vidhivat sāvitryāi.e., by means of the full details of the Initiatory Rite, which is what is indicated by the term sāvitrī—utpādayati—is what is superior.’ ‘Jāti’ stands for ‘janma,’ birth.—(148)

 KR IRs 3626


Aravinda Rao

unread,
2:32 AM (20 hours ago) 2:32 AM
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Dear Sri Lokesh ji, 

'Even today we have high-regarded people within Hinduism that actively advocate for birth based varnas and do so based on our scriptures." I agree with you on this point. People do so because of ignorance. In my opinion, our swamis have to clarify the position of the scriptures saying that varna is different from caste and that caste is not created by religion. The silence of our religious leaders is leading to feelings of superiority or inferiority, which is the cause of social disharmony. 
While the varnas are now indistinguishable, only a few among the brahmana varna are doing their varna related duties and austerities. Most brahmins are brahmins by birth. They do not qualify to be called brahmins according to Vyasa in the Nahusha episode. 

The second question is about the verse from Manusmriti. The verse was discussed by Mahamandaleshwar Maheshananda Giri (of Haridwar, Kanakhal) in the vol.1.p 26 of his book चातुर्वर्ण्य-भारत-समीक्षा which is in three volumes. He writes - तत्तद्रोगपरीकणकुशलस्य राजवैद्यस्येव मनुजस्वभावाकृतिवर्णादि परीक्षणकुशलस्य आचार्यस्य अपक्षपातया परीक्षया ....।बाल्येऽपि ब्राह्मण्यादिनिर्णयसंभवात्।  
माणवकस्य आकृतिवर्णोच्चारणादि परीक्षणेन सावित्र्या = गायत्रीमन्त्रप्रदानद्वारा यां ब्राह्मणत्वादिजातिम् उत्पादयति = प्रकटयति, सैव जातिः सत्या = यथार्था विज्ञेया, सैवाजरामरा = शास्वतीचेत्यर्थः। अतः ब्राह्मणत्वादिरूपैव जातिरत्र विवक्षिता । सा नैव जन्मतः सिद्धा, किन्त्वाचार्येण जन्यते।  
I am told that this book was strongly countered by Karapatri swamiji. So, there is always a difference of opinion which cannot be resolved. 
Aravinda Rao

लोकेश

unread,
4:41 AM (18 hours ago) 4:41 AM
to bhAratIya-vidvat-pariShad भारतीय-विद्वत्परिषद्
Dear Dr. Aravinda Rao K

Thank you for the clarification. Your efforts are commendable in trying to prove that Hinduism doesn't support birth based varna system. At the same time I fear the efforts wouldn't bear concrete results because other highly learned acahryas and saints in Hinduism use the same sastras to prove otherwise. 

For example, Adi Shankaracharya was of the opinion that sudra-varna is determined by birth as mentioned in his bhasya in अपशूद्राधिकरण in ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्य -

 जातिशूद्रस्यानधिकारात् इति Because a person who by birth is a Śūdra has no competency (for Vidyā). 

  न च शूद्रस्य वेदाध्ययनमस्ति;
A Śūdra is precluded from the study of the Vedas,

उपनयनपूर्वकत्वाद्वेदाध्ययनस्य, उपनयनस्य च वर्णत्रयविषयत्वात्।


 यत्तु अर्थित्वम्, न तदसति सामर्थ्येऽधिकारकारणं भवति।
The argument about (a Śūdra) having desire (Arthitva), does not constitute a reason conferring competency, in the absence of ability.

 सामर्थ्यमपि न लौकिकं केवलमधिकारकारणं भवति;
Nor can mere worldly ability be a reason for conferring competency,

शास्त्रीयेऽर्थे शास्त्रीयस्य सामर्थ्यस्यापेक्षितत्वात्,
Because in matters relating to Śāstras, ability in conformity with Śāstras is necessary,

 शास्त्रीयस्य च सामर्थ्यस्याध्ययननिराकरणेन निराकृतत्वात्।
And because (in the case of a Śūdra) ability in conformity with Śāstras has been ruled out, by the ruling out of the study of Vedas (in his case). 

When Adi Shankaracharya, an authoritative figure doesn't concede to the argument that one's capacity can override birth to determine varna, what to so of the others Acharyas. We can never convince them. This is what I fear in your efforts trying to prove that Hinduism doesn't support birth based varna, but quality based varna system.

Kind regards 

Abhishek Mehta

unread,
4:41 AM (18 hours ago) 4:41 AM
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
So this means without the bhashya the meaning of upanayanam doesn't hold in the original verse.

Abhishek Mehta

unread,
5:24 AM (18 hours ago) 5:24 AM
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com, लोकेश
I don't know where you are getting these translations from but these translations are false and misleading. 

न च शूद्रस्य वेदाध्ययनमस्ति । उपनयनपूर्वकत्वाद्वेदाध्ययनस्य, उपनयनस्य च वर्णत्रयविषयत्वात् ।

This simply means that Shudras don't have Upanayana-initiated Vedadhyayana as Upanayanam is only reserved for the top three varnas. But shudras do have upanayanetaram vedaadhyayanam. Vidura's example is quoted in the Shankarabhashya prior to this statement in support of this.

यत्तु अर्थित्वम्, न तदसति सामर्थ्येऽधिकारकारणं भवति।

This states that in absence of competence, desire itself is not a cause for right to vedadhyayanam.

सामर्थ्यमपि न लौकिकं केवलमधिकारकारणं भवति शास्त्रीयेऽर्थे शास्त्रीयस्य सामर्थ्यस्यापेक्षितत्वात् ।

This states that only divinely-attributed competence (à la Vidura etc.) is the cause for the right to vedadhyayanam due to the expectation of scholarship in scriptural meaning, a scholarship that was granted to Vidura and others by divine means.

These divine means can be anything and indeed different puranic and itihasic stories present different divine means of granting right to vedaadhyayanam to different people. So, even Adi Shankaracharya hasn't conceded to birth-based right over divinely-granted right. I can see why translations such as the above can make you feel that way. That is why it's always important to read the original Sanskrit with an unbiased mind before making any judgement.








--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

Aravinda Rao

unread,
5:52 AM (17 hours ago) 5:52 AM
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com, लोकेश
Namaskars,
As I understand the adhikarana, the question is not merely about a sudra's adhikara for the study of the Vedas but whether he is entitled for brahma-vidya, which leads to moksha, a greater goal. While concluding the discussion, Sri Shankaracharya observes येषां पुनः पूर्वकृतसंस्कारवशात् विदुर-धर्मव्याधप्रभृतीनां ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः तेषां न शक्यते फलप्राप्तिः प्रतिषेद्धुम्। ज्ञानस्यैकान्तिकफलत्वात्। None can obstruct phala prapti if people such as Vidura or Dharmavyadha attained the knowledge of Brahman because of the earlier samskaras, because jnanam unfailingly leads to moksha.  He goes on to quote the Mahabharata and says that all the four varnas are entitled to know the meaning of the Vedas through itihasas and puranas, though the same knowledge is denied through the channel of Veda for a sudra.  It is like saying that Modi cannot be a pujari but he can be a Prime Minister.  
Aravinda Rao . 

Ramanath Pandey

unread,
9:21 AM (14 hours ago) 9:21 AM
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com, लोकेश
Namaskar, "A Śūdra does not have the right to study the Vedas, because Vedic study is preceded by the Upanayana (sacred initiation) ceremony, and the Upanayana is prescribed only for the three varṇas (Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, and Vaiśya)."

Literal Explanation

  • न च शूद्रस्य वेदाध्ययनमस्ति
  • "Nor does a Śūdra have entitlement to Vedic study."
  • उपनयनपूर्वकत्वाद्वेदाध्ययनस्य
  • "Because the study of the Vedas is dependent upon (or preceded by) the Upanayana initiation."
  • उपनयनस्य च वर्णत्रयविषयत्वात्
  • "And because the Upanayana ceremony is prescribed only for the three varṇas."

Academic Rendering

"According to the traditional Dharmashastric view, a Śūdra is not entitled to Vedic study, since Vedic learning requires prior initiation through the Upanayana rite, and that rite is regarded as applicable only to the three twice-born classes—Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, and Vaiśyas."

This translation reflects the classical orthodox position expressed in certain Dharmashastra and Mimamsa texts. It describes a historical doctrinal viewpoint and should not be taken as representative of all Hindu traditions or later reformist interpretations.


Sane Sun

unread,
11:43 AM (11 hours ago) 11:43 AM
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Guna Shudra’s are prohibited. Many many Jati Brahmins are Guna Shudras. Most Jati Shudras likely, in my limited understanding, seem like Guna Brahmins to me.

लोकेश

unread,
11:43 AM (11 hours ago) 11:43 AM
to Abhishek Mehta, bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr. Aravinda Rao K

My intent in producing the ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्य was to show that even Adi Shankara supported the birth-based varna system. 

> He goes on to quote the Mahabharata and says that all the four varnas are entitled to know the meaning of the Vedas through itihasas and puranas, though the same knowledge is denied through the channel of Veda for a sudra.

To me, it still seems unjust to restrict access to Veda to our own countrymen, despite them having the capability and desire, just because they belong to a different family. And we all know how much of a difference there is between acquiring knowledge through Puranas and through Upanishadas. It's not the same, even though the end result may be the same.

> It is like saying that Modi cannot be a pujari but he can be a Prime Minister.  

A more apt illustration would be that a sudra athlete cannot go to the nation's best stadium for practice (Veda), but can compete in the Olympics (moksa) by practicing through other channels.

Regards

On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 3:35 PM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Abhishek Ji

I'm pretty confident these translations are not misleading. Please read the bhaṣya in its entirety - 

यथा मनुष्याधिकारनियममपोद्य देवादीनामपि विद्यास्वधिकार उक्तः, तथैव द्विजात्यधिकारनियमापवादेन शूद्रस्याप्यधिकारः स्यादित्येतामाशङ्कां निवर्तयितुमिदमधिकरणमारभ्यते । तत्र शूद्रस्याप्यधिकारः स्यादिति तावत्प्राप्तम्; अर्थित्वसामर्थ्ययोः सम्भवात् , तस्माच्छूद्रो यज्ञेऽनवकॢप्तः’ (तै. सं. ७ । १ । १ । ६) इतिवत्शूद्रो विद्यायामनवकॢप्तइति निषेधाश्रवणात् । यच्च कर्मस्वनधिकारकारणं शूद्रस्यानग्नित्वम् , तद्विद्यास्वधिकारस्यापवादकं लिङ्गम् । ह्याहवनीयादिरहितेन विद्या वेदितुं शक्यते । भवति श्रौतं लिङ्गं शूद्राधिकारस्योपोद्बलकम् । संवर्गविद्यायां हि जानश्रुतिं पौत्रायणं शुश्रूषुं शूद्रशब्देन परामृशतिअह हारे त्वा शूद्र तवैव सह गोभिरस्तु’ (छा. उ. ४ । २ । ३) इति । विदुरप्रभृतयश्च शूद्रयोनिप्रभवा अपि विशिष्टविज्ञानसम्पन्नाः स्मर्यन्ते । तस्मादधिक्रियते शूद्रो विद्यास्वित्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः

The aim of the adhikarana is to restrict access to sudra as clearly started in the beginning (शूद्रस्याप्यधिकारः स्यादित्येतामाशङ्कां निवर्तयितुमिदमधिकरणमारभ्यते). Then begins the पूर्वपक्ष arguing for inclusion of शूद्र in learning ब्रह्मविद्या. The पूर्वपक्ष provides various arguments for it such as - sudras have both the desire and competency (अर्थित्वसामर्थ्ययोः सम्भवात्), in the same vein it is mentioned that vidura etc too had access to specialized knowledge (विदुरप्रभृतयश्च शूद्रयोनिप्रभवा अपि विशिष्टविज्ञानसम्पन्नाः स्मर्यन्ते) and therefore sudras should have access to ब्रह्मविद्या (तस्मादधिक्रियते शूद्रो विद्यासु). Here ends the पूर्वपक्ष and the उत्तरपक्ष begins (इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः)

Also please read the bhaṣya to 38th sutra. Things will become very clear then - 

इतश्च शूद्रस्याधिकारः; यदस्य स्मृतेः श्रवणाध्ययनार्थप्रतिषेधो भवति । वेदश्रवणप्रतिषेधः, वेदाध्ययनप्रतिषेधः, तदर्थज्ञानानुष्ठानयोश्च प्रतिषेधः शूद्रस्य स्मर्यते । श्रवणप्रतिषेधस्तावत् — ‘अथ हास्य वेदमुपशृण्वतस्त्रपुजतुभ्यां श्रोत्रप्रतिपूरणम्इति; ‘पद्यु वा एतच्छ्मशानं यच्छूद्रस्तस्माच्छूद्रसमीपे नाध्येतव्यम्इति  । अत एवाध्ययनप्रतिषेधः । यस्य हि समीपेऽपि नाध्येतव्यं भवति, कथमश्रुतमधीयीत । भवति वेदोच्चारणे जिह्वाच्छेदः, धारणे शरीरभेद’(गौ॰ध॰सू॰ २-३-४) इति । अत एव चार्थादर्थज्ञानानुष्ठानयोः प्रतिषेधो भवति शूद्राय मतिं दद्यात्’(म॰स्मृ॰ ४-८०) इति, द्विजातीनामध्ययनमिज्या दानम्’(गौ॰ध॰सू॰ २-१-१) इति  । येषां पुनः पूर्वकृतसंस्कारवशाद्विदुरधर्मव्याधप्रभृतीनां ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः, तेषां शक्यते फलप्राप्तिः प्रतिषेद्धुम् , ज्ञानस्यैकान्तिकफलत्वात् । श्रावयेच्चतुरो वर्णान्’(म॰भा॰ १२-३२७-४९) इति चेतिहासपुराणाधिगमे चातुर्वर्ण्यस्याधिकारस्मरणात् । वेदपूर्वकस्तु नास्त्यधिकारः शूद्राणामिति स्थितम् ॥ ३८ ॥

Vidura got the knowledge not from the Veda but from other means. 

Regards

लोकेश

unread,
11:43 AM (11 hours ago) 11:43 AM
to Abhishek Mehta, bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Dear Abhishek Ji

I'm pretty confident these translations are not misleading. Please read the bhaṣya in its entirety - 

यथा मनुष्याधिकारनियममपोद्य देवादीनामपि विद्यास्वधिकार उक्तः, तथैव द्विजात्यधिकारनियमापवादेन शूद्रस्याप्यधिकारः स्यादित्येतामाशङ्कां निवर्तयितुमिदमधिकरणमारभ्यते । तत्र शूद्रस्याप्यधिकारः स्यादिति तावत्प्राप्तम्; अर्थित्वसामर्थ्ययोः सम्भवात् , तस्माच्छूद्रो यज्ञेऽनवकॢप्तः’ (तै. सं. ७ । १ । १ । ६) इतिवत्शूद्रो विद्यायामनवकॢप्तइति निषेधाश्रवणात् । यच्च कर्मस्वनधिकारकारणं शूद्रस्यानग्नित्वम् , तद्विद्यास्वधिकारस्यापवादकं लिङ्गम् । ह्याहवनीयादिरहितेन विद्या वेदितुं शक्यते । भवति श्रौतं लिङ्गं शूद्राधिकारस्योपोद्बलकम् । संवर्गविद्यायां हि जानश्रुतिं पौत्रायणं शुश्रूषुं शूद्रशब्देन परामृशतिअह हारे त्वा शूद्र तवैव सह गोभिरस्तु’ (छा. उ. ४ । २ । ३) इति । विदुरप्रभृतयश्च शूद्रयोनिप्रभवा अपि विशिष्टविज्ञानसम्पन्नाः स्मर्यन्ते । तस्मादधिक्रियते शूद्रो विद्यास्वित्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः

The aim of the adhikarana is to restrict access to sudra as clearly started in the beginning (शूद्रस्याप्यधिकारः स्यादित्येतामाशङ्कां निवर्तयितुमिदमधिकरणमारभ्यते). Then begins the पूर्वपक्ष arguing for inclusion of शूद्र in learning ब्रह्मविद्या. The पूर्वपक्ष provides various arguments for it such as - sudras have both the desire and competency (अर्थित्वसामर्थ्ययोः सम्भवात्), in the same vein it is mentioned that vidura etc too had access to specialized knowledge (विदुरप्रभृतयश्च शूद्रयोनिप्रभवा अपि विशिष्टविज्ञानसम्पन्नाः स्मर्यन्ते) and therefore sudras should have access to ब्रह्मविद्या (तस्मादधिक्रियते शूद्रो विद्यासु). Here ends the पूर्वपक्ष and the उत्तरपक्ष begins (इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः)

Also please read the bhaṣya to 38th sutra. Things will become very clear then - 

इतश्च शूद्रस्याधिकारः; यदस्य स्मृतेः श्रवणाध्ययनार्थप्रतिषेधो भवति । वेदश्रवणप्रतिषेधः, वेदाध्ययनप्रतिषेधः, तदर्थज्ञानानुष्ठानयोश्च प्रतिषेधः शूद्रस्य स्मर्यते । श्रवणप्रतिषेधस्तावत् — ‘अथ हास्य वेदमुपशृण्वतस्त्रपुजतुभ्यां श्रोत्रप्रतिपूरणम्इति; ‘पद्यु वा एतच्छ्मशानं यच्छूद्रस्तस्माच्छूद्रसमीपे नाध्येतव्यम्इति  । अत एवाध्ययनप्रतिषेधः । यस्य हि समीपेऽपि नाध्येतव्यं भवति, कथमश्रुतमधीयीत । भवति वेदोच्चारणे जिह्वाच्छेदः, धारणे शरीरभेद’(गौ॰ध॰सू॰ २-३-४) इति । अत एव चार्थादर्थज्ञानानुष्ठानयोः प्रतिषेधो भवति शूद्राय मतिं दद्यात्’(म॰स्मृ॰ ४-८०) इति, द्विजातीनामध्ययनमिज्या दानम्’(गौ॰ध॰सू॰ २-१-१) इति  । येषां पुनः पूर्वकृतसंस्कारवशाद्विदुरधर्मव्याधप्रभृतीनां ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः, तेषां शक्यते फलप्राप्तिः प्रतिषेद्धुम् , ज्ञानस्यैकान्तिकफलत्वात् । श्रावयेच्चतुरो वर्णान्’(म॰भा॰ १२-३२७-४९) इति चेतिहासपुराणाधिगमे चातुर्वर्ण्यस्याधिकारस्मरणात् । वेदपूर्वकस्तु नास्त्यधिकारः शूद्राणामिति स्थितम् ॥ ३८ ॥

Vidura got the knowledge not from the Veda but from other means. 

Regards

On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 2:39 PM Abhishek Mehta <docabh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Abhishek Mehta

unread,
11:43 AM (11 hours ago) 11:43 AM
to लोकेश, bvpar...@googlegroups.com
I actually have read the bhashya in its entirety. The bhashya to the 38th sutra explains the extent of the प्रतिषेधः via श्रवणप्रतिषेधस्तावत् which means 'Prohibhition to the extent of' which is then followed by a quotation from the Gautama Dharmasutra and Vashishtha Dharmasutra. Hence, the प्रतिषेधः described in the Shankarabhashya of 38th sutra only applies to the extent it is prohibited in the particular Gautama and Vashishtha Dharmasutra, respectively quoted by Adi Shankaracharya. In that specific Dharmasutra of Gautama, the extent of prohibition is penal and not universal. Shudras convicted of causing grief to the brahmana and kshatriyas only are covered in that specific Dharmasutra. The next quotation from Vashishtha Dharmasutra only applies to specific varnasankara of shudras and not shudras in general.

This again reiterates my conclusion regarding the limited nature of Adi Shankaracharya's prescribed pratishedha and presenting other options for Shudras to achieve Vedaadhyayanam beyond the upanayanam.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages