brahmasootra apashoodradhikarana

[Jyoti Raj]

I am pursuing PhD on Apashoodradhikarana of Brahmasootra (1.3.34-1.3.38), in which badarayna, all the bhaashykaras. and teekaakar have excluded shudras from brahmavidya. according to shankar, ramanuj, madhva, vallabh etc. sudra (by caste) is not qualified to undertake Brahmavidya. 

I have read whole bhashyas of  shankar, ramanuj, vallabh, madhva and nimbark but i couldn't get even a single line in which the would be  denying the cast system, or else supporting the sudras. kindly help me to find out some supporting lines.   

--

Jyoti Raj

Research Scholar

Dept. of Sanskrit 

Delhi University

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Ms. Raj,

 

I am not aware of the contents of the bhAshyas of rAmAnuja and later commentators, but I'm afraid you have not understood the SAnkara bhAshya on the apaSUdrAdhikaraNa correctly. The gist of the final viewpoint expressed there is as follows.

 

Those ineligible to study the veda cannot pursue the Srauta, i.e. aupanishada, route to knowledge of brahman. However, for the qualified brahmajijnAsu (said qualifications were already listed in the adhyAsa bhAshya, i.e. introduction section of his brahmasUtrabhAshya), the road to brahmavidyA lies through the smArta category of the itihAsa-purANa. He quotes a text that says, "zrAvayec caturvarNAn" and confirms that the itihAsa-purANa is open to all, irrespective of varNa. Please note that the text par eminence here is the mahAbhArata, which contains the gItA, which in turn, is the smRti text par excellence, and one of the three prasthAna-s on which vedAnta bases itself. Sankara never claims that a SUdra is incapable of attaining the qualifications that he considers essential for brahmajijnAsA. And he had already decoupled brahmajijnAsA from formal study of the vedas or performance of the rituals enjoined in them.

 

I'm afraid you are not going to find anything denying the caste system or even criticizing it. However, do note that in Sankara's system, the ideal brahmajnAnI is beyond varNa and Asrama. This is because the identity of this jnAnI is not bound by human society at all. Nevertheless, why should one presume that Sankara or any other bhAshyakAra from the vedAnta schools should have denied varnASrama as a system that orders human society? Isn't it rather presumptuous to expect that these authors should have subscribed to contemporary concerns about varNa?

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[Aurobind Padiyath]

I have seen one reference to this in the Aanandagiri Teekka on Sankara's Bhasyam for the 16th verse in Advaiata Prakarana of Gaudapada Karika for Maandookyopanishad. While Sankara leaves it as "Varna" the teekkakara refers to Sudra in particular. Which I felt it as twisting the original by compulsions of the time. 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Badarayana lived in the Dwapara yuga and at his time the Shudras were not allowed to observe Tapa but in the Kali yuga  the Shudras have been allowed to to perform Tapa.

तस्मिन्द्वापरसंख्ये तु वर्तमाने युगक्षये  अधर्मश्चानृतं चैव ववृधे पुरुषर्षभ  |
तस्मिन्द्वापरसंख्याते तपो वैश्यान्समाविशत् न शूद्रो लभते धर्ममुग्रं तप्तुं नरर्षभ  |
हीनवर्णो नरश्रेष्ठ तप्यते सुमहत्तपः भविष्या शुद्रयोन्यां हि तपश्चर्या  कलौ युगे  |

There could have been such strictures on reading the Vedic texts too for the shudras in the Dwapara yuga. However there were cases where such strictures could be lifted in deserving cases, such as what happened in case of satyakama.

Sunil KB

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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 post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 11:45:16 PM UTC+8, jyotiraj.2009 wrote:

I am pursuing PhD on Apashoodradhikarana of Brahmasootra (1.3.34-1.3.38), in which badarayna, all the bhaashykaras. and teekaakar have excluded shudras from brahmavidya. according to shankar, ramanuj, madhva, vallabh etc. sudra (by caste) is not qualified to undertake Brahmavidya. 

I have read whole bhashyas of  shankar, ramanuj, vallabh, madhva and nimbark but i couldn't get even a single line in which the would be  denying the cast system, or else supporting the sudras. kindly help me to find out some supporting lines.   

If the context is itself titled Apaśūdrādhikaraṇa, the view of the author of Brahma Sūtra is probably quite clear. Commentators are just attempting to be faithful to the original work and explain the view of Bādarāyaṇa as they understand it. We cannot expect traditional commentators who lived hundreds of years ago, in an entirely different milieu from today, to voice views which are considered politically correct today, especially when they are explaining someone else's work.

Having said that, several commentators make a distinction between Brahmavidyā as taught in the Vedas, the study of which as per their view is not open to Śūdras, and the Brahmavidyā arising out of listening the Purāṇa and Itihāsa works, which in their view are open to all. This is the traditional position, as also stated in the Bhāgavatam (1.4.25) -

strīśūdradvijabandhūnāṁ trayī na śrutigocarā

karmaśreyasi mūḍhānāṁ śreya evaṁ bhavediha

iti bhāratamākhyānaṁ kṛpayā muninā kṛtam

You may want to read the views of S Radhakrishnan who, at the end of his translation of Apaśūdrādhikaraṇa (George Allen and Unwin Limited, 1960, pp. 306-309), rejects any such restrictions "The restrictions with regards to Vedic study cannot be defended ..."

https://archive.org/stream/Sarvepalli.Radhakrishnan-Brahma.Sutra-The.Philosophy.of.Spiritual.Life/Radhakrishnan-Brahma.Sutra-The.Philosophy.of.Spiritual.Life#page/n308/mode/1up

So you may say that Radhakrishnan is the only one here supporting the Śūdras and opposing the caste system. But at the same time he is also opposing Bādarāyaṇa himself. A modern writer is free to do that, but bear in mind that the work is not a Bhāṣya if the author does this. For a work to be considered as a Bhāṣya, it has to be faithful to the original work.

[Sivakumar,Kollam]

SAdra praNAm,

VidyAdhirAja Chattambi SwAmikal
a Siaint from Kerala has written

on the competency for the study of Vedas

in the work "VedAdhikAra NIroopanam"

but the work is in Malayalam.

Someone in this forum has already

commented on the subject.

Panmana Asrama where is the SamAdhi of

that great saint may be able to Help you.
www.panmanaashram.com

Namaste.

Prof.sivakumarr

[Jyoti Raj]

respected sir, thank you for the reply. but i am still stick to my point. according to s.n.das gupta the time period of badarayan was 2nd century b.c .. i cannnt say it was dwapar yug or something else. i am just searching out why the badarayan and shankar, ramanuj etc. have excluded sudras (by caste) from the study of Brahmavidya. shankar says in his bhashya - जातिशूद्रस्यानाधिकारात् | and even in geeta (१८.४८) he defines the word सहजं as सह जन्मना एव उत्पन्नं सहजं किं तत् कर्म कौन्तेय सदोषं अपि त्रिगुणत्वाद् न त्यजेत्  | i am searching have they ever said something to support sudras? that i coudn't find out in the bhashyas. and my work is stick to the brahmasootra, i cannot go far away which is not related to the vedanta. 

thank you sir .

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:41 AM, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jyoti Raj]

respected sir thank you for your reply. I agree to your such a meaningful point, that a sudra who have not studied vedas is not entitled for Brahmavidya. But there is again self-Contradiction in the bhashyas, because when a sudra wants to study veda bhashyakaras do not allow them to study it (brahmasutra 1.3.38) bhashyakaras quotes some of the lines of smritis and gautam dharma sutras .   , according to shankar's metaphysics everything is brahm then a sudra should also called as a brahm. 

    the second point is that, yes i agree they allow sudras to listen puran and itihas, but in the brahmavidyabharana teeka of shankar bhashya the teekakar says that sudras are not allow to read even the puranas and itihas or mahabharat in which the brahmavidya is mention.

   the third point  has been described that Sankara's system, is beyond varNa and Asrama and if it is beyond the varna and asaram then why doesn't he allow sudras to study brahmavidya and vedas.. he allow to study brahmavidya to them who have broken the rules of asaram vyavastha, but he s not redy to break the rules of varnavyavastha. "विधुरादिनां द्रव्यादिसम्पद्रहितानां चान्यतमाश्रमप्रतिपत्तिहीनानामन्तरालवर्तिनां किं विद्यायामधिकारोऽस्ति किंवा नास्तीति संशये, नास्तीति तावत्प्राप्तम्, आश्रमकर्मणां विद्याहेतुत्वावधारणादाश्रमकर्मासम्भवाच्चैतेषामिति। एवं प्राप्त इदमाह- अन्तरा चापि तु' अनाश्रमित्वेन वर्तमानोऽपि विद्यायामधिक्रियते। कुतः? तद्दृष्टेः। रैक्ववाचक्नविप्रभृतीनामेवंभूतानामपि ब्रह्मवित्त्वश्रुत्युपलब्धेः" (३.४.९.३६ ब्रह्मसूत्र शाङ्करभाष्य)

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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 post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jyoti Raj]

respected sir, thank you for your precious reply. i agree to your point  in which you have described  Commentators are just attempting to be faithful to the original work and explain the view of Bādarāyaṇa as they understand it.

 but still they are the brahmagyaani they are giving a meaningful direction to the society. they should have given their own thoughts also on it. and all the bhashykaras are trying to explain brahmasootra according to their sampradaaya then these all are actually their own commentries. whatever they think they described. as radhakrishanan have opposed them they also should have denied that system but they didn't. why ????  may be because they all agree for such varna and jati system.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (nmi...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule | More info

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 11:45:16 PM UTC+8, jyotiraj.2009 wrote:

I am pursuing PhD on Apashoodradhikarana of Brahmasootra (1.3.34-1.3.38), in which badarayna, all the bhaashykaras. and teekaakar have excluded shudras from brahmavidya. according to shankar, ramanuj, madhva, vallabh etc. sudra (by caste) is not qualified to undertake Brahmavidya. 

I have read whole bhashyas of  shankar, ramanuj, vallabh, madhva and nimbark but i couldn't get even a single line in which the would be  denying the cast system, or else supporting the sudras. kindly help me to find out some supporting lines.   

If the context is itself titled Apaśūdrādhikaraṇa, the view of the author of Brahma Sūtra is probably quite clear. Commentators are just attempting to be faithful to the original work and explain the view of Bādarāyaṇa as they understand it. We cannot expect traditional commentators who lived hundreds of years ago, in an entirely different milieu from today, to voice views which are considered politically correct today, especially when they are explaining someone else's work.

Having said that, several commentators make a distinction between Brahmavidyā as taught in the Vedas, the study of which as per their view is not open to Śūdras, and the Brahmavidyā arising out of listening the Purāṇa and Itihāsa works, which in their view are open to all. This is the traditional position, as also stated in the Bhāgavatam (1.4.25) -

strīśūdradvijabandhūnāṁ trayī na śrutigocarā

karmaśreyasi mūḍhānāṁ śreya evaṁ bhavediha

iti bhāratamākhyānaṁ kṛpayā muninā kṛtam

You may want to read the views of S Radhakrishnan who, at the end of his translation of Apaśūdrādhikaraṇa (George Allen and Unwin Limited, 1960, pp. 306-309), rejects any such restrictions "The restrictions with regards to Vedic study cannot be defended ..."

https://archive.org/stream/Sarvepalli.Radhakrishnan-Brahma.Sutra-The.Philosophy.of.Spiritual.Life/Radhakrishnan-Brahma.Sutra-The.Philosophy.of.Spiritual.Life#page/n308/mode/1up

So you may say that Radhakrishnan is the only one here supporting the Śūdras and opposing the caste system. But at the same time he is also opposing Bādarāyaṇa himself. A modern writer is free to do that, but bear in mind that the work is not a Bhāṣya if the author does this. For a work to be considered as a Bhāṣya, it has to be faithful to the original work.

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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 post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

You must first know and clearly state the difference between Varna and Jati. Please don't mix up 20 century concepts of Jati into a thousand 1500 year old bhashya then the bhashya will become clear. All commentators are influenced by the society they lived and the texts and knowledge they had in hand at a given point of time at which they wrote their commentary

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Jyoti Raj]

respected sir, i agree to your point. jati is जन्मना जायते इति जातिः | and all the bhashyakaras are supporting the jati-vyavastha as i have seen in the bhashyas. thank you sir.

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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 post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

As far as I understand the commentaries the uddesha of writing bhashya for realization of Self or Brahman not to get into elaborate discussions about Varna or Jati which is within the scope of Dharma sutras rate than Brahma sutras.

The Bhashyakaras views only talks about adhikarin or who has the capability to correctly understand the sutras Thanks

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, April 4, 2014 11:58:04 AM UTC+8, jyotiraj.2009 wrote:

respected sir, thank you for your precious reply. i agree to your point  in which you have described  Commentators are just attempting to be faithful to the original work and explain the view of Bādarāyaṇa as they understand it.

 but still they are the brahmagyaani they are giving a meaningful direction to the society. they should have given their own thoughts also on it. and all the bhashykaras are trying to explain brahmasootra according to their sampradaaya then these all are actually their own commentries. whatever they think they described. as radhakrishanan have opposed them they also should have denied that system but they didn't. why ????  may be because they all agree for such varna and jati system.

You have answered the question yourself. They all agreed with the वर्णव्यवस्था. Can they be faulted if they agreed with a social system?

I am surprised that a serious student as you makes a statement like -

"As radhakrishanan have opposed them [sic] they also should have denied that system but they didn't"

The statement belies a foregone conclusion - that the वर्णव्यवस्था system was "wrong" and the commentators should have denied it but they did not. The statement is an opinion masquerading as a fact.

It is like saying As "Abraham Lincoln opposed slavery, the prophet of Islam should have abolished it but he did not."

One cannot use standards of today to judge historical figures.
 

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Ms Jyoti,

You are mixing up two status of existences to make a contradiction between them.

One is Vyavaharika and the other being Pramarthatha.

All explanations and books and bhasyas have relevance only in the first and hence they are under the influence of the Dharma (rules) of that state of awareness. And in the later stage ज्ञाते द्वैथम् न विद्यते .

And you may wonder if they are True Knowers of the Paramarthata how can they have vyavahara? Do not we explain to the children saying ""look at the blue sky!!! how beautiful the golden cloud looks in it???"" While we know that the sky is not blue and the clouds per say have no colors... what happened to our knowledge when we do that? It is an example of Vyavahara with the Knowledge of the Truth.

Aurobind Padiyath

+91-9689755499

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/fC5NuiAY2cw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Aurobind Padiyath

+91-9689755499

[Vineet Chaitanya]

On the basis of Shankar Bhashya on 1.3.38 last two sentences:

       It can be established that Shudras are entitled to acquire Brahmvidya through Bhagvadgeeta etc. Only वेदपूर्वक अध्ययन of Brahmvidyaa is prohibited. 

--

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
www.lalitaalaalitah.com

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Jyoti Raj <jyotir...@gmail.com> wrote:

respected sir thank you for your reply. I agree to your such a meaningful point, that a sudra who have not studied vedas is not entitled for Brahmavidya. But there is again self-Contradiction in the bhashyas, because when a sudra wants to study veda bhashyakaras do not allow them to study it (brahmasutra 1.3.38) bhashyakaras quotes some of the lines of smritis and gautam dharma sutras .

​I don't think that any of the posters said that - 'shUdra-s have adhikAra to study veda-s and if they don't study they can't study brahmavidyA too'.

They said that - 'shUdra is ineligible to study veda-s and hence they can't acquire brahmavidyA through upaniShad-s, i.e. veda-s'.

So, there is no contradiction. shUdra-s have no adhikAra for veda-adhyayana and hence can't acquire brahmavidyA through them.

Again, your lines about 'some lines'​

 

​shows that you are either not aware of or could not appreciate smR^iti-s, etc. which support varNa-vyavasthA. That's OK. But, don't hope to get this stand validated by old AchArya-s. Why should they comply to your prejudice ?
​

  , according to shankar's metaphysics everything is brahm then a sudra should also called as a brahm. 

​This again shows that you consider advaitavAda opposed to varNa-vyavasthA, which of course is not the case. How could sUtra like sarvApexA cha yaGYAdishruteH ashvAdivat, etc. follow if that was the case?

Try to search internet to get this solved. vidyAsha~Nkara, subrahmanian have written many replies for such doubts on advaita-L and advaitin forums.
​

 

    the second point is that, yes i agree they allow sudras to listen puran and itihas, but in the brahmavidyabharana teeka of shankar bhashya the teekakar says that sudras are not allow to read even the puranas and itihas or mahabharat in which the brahmavidya is mention.

​If you could point that portion in commentary, we will try to have a look.
​

 

   the third point  has been described that Sankara's system, is beyond varNa and Asrama and if it is beyond the varna and asaram then why doesn't he allow sudras to study brahmavidya and vedas..

​This is just repetition of your previous doubt.
​

 

he allow to study brahmavidya to them who have broken the rules of asaram vyavastha, but he s not redy to break the rules of varnavyavastha. "विधुरादिनां द्रव्यादिसम्पद्रहितानां चान्यतमाश्रमप्रतिपत्तिहीनानामन्तरालवर्तिनां किं विद्यायामधिकारोऽस्ति किंवा नास्तीति संशये, नास्तीति तावत्प्राप्तम्, आश्रमकर्मणां विद्याहेतुत्वावधारणादाश्रमकर्मासम्भवाच्चैतेषामिति। एवं प्राप्त इदमाह- अन्तरा चापि तु' अनाश्रमित्वेन वर्तमानोऽपि विद्यायामधिक्रियते। कुतः? तद्दृष्टेः। रैक्ववाचक्नविप्रभृतीनामेवंभूतानामपि ब्रह्मवित्त्वश्रुत्युपलब्धेः" (३.४.९.३६ ब्रह्मसूत्र शाङ्करभाष्य)

​That's why vidyAsha~Nkara said that people can attain brahmavidyA through other means as itihAsa, purANa, etc. and nityAnanda supported it by quoting purANa.

As bhagavatpAda allows anAshramI-s, so he allows varNI-s related to shUdra category, for the same reason that brahmaGYAnI-s are seen in shUdra category too.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Jyoti Raj <jyotir...@gmail.com> wrote:

 , according to shankar's metaphysics everything is brahm then a sudra should also called as a brahm. 

The above has to be understood in the light of the Bhagavadgita:

मूल स्लोकः विद्याविनयसंपन्ने ब्राह्मणे गवि हस्तिनि। शुनि चैव श्वपाके च पण्डिताः समदर्शिनः।।5.18।।

Sanskrit commentary by Sri Sankaracharya -- विद्याविनयसंपन्ने विद्या च विनयश्च विद्याविनयौ, विद्या आत्मनो बोधो विनयः उपशमः, ताभ्यां विद्याविनयाभ्यां संपन्नः विद्याविनयसंपन्नः विद्वान् विनीतश्च यो ब्राह्मणः तस्मिन् ब्राह्मणे गवि हस्तिनि शुनि चैव श्वपाके च पण्डिताः समदर्शिनः। विद्याविनयसंपन्ने उत्तमसंस्कारवति ब्राह्मणे सात्त्विके, मध्यमायां च राजस्यां गवि, संस्कारहीनायाम् अत्यन्तमेव केवलतामसे हस्त्यादौ च, सत्त्वादिगुणैः तज्जैश्च संस्कारैः तथा राजसैः तथा तामसैश्च संस्कारैः अत्यन्तमेव अस्पृष्टं समम् एकम् अविक्रियं तत् ब्रह्म द्रष्टुं शीलं येषां ते पण्डिताः समदर्शिनः।।ननु अभोज्यान्नाः ते दोषवन्तः, 'समासमाभ्यां विषमसमे पूजातः (गौ0 स्म0 17.20)' इति स्मृतेः। न ते दोषवन्तः। कथम्? -- ।।5.18।।

And also a part of the bhashyam for the subsequent verse:

देहादिसंघातात्मदर्शनाभिमानवद्विषयं तु तत् सूत्रम् 'समासमाभ्यां विषमसमे पूजातः (गौ. स्मृ. 17.20)' इति, पूजाविषयत्वेन विशेषणात्। दृश्यते हि ब्रह्मवित् षडङ्गवित् चतुर्वेदवित् इति पूजादानादौ गुणविशेषसंबन्धः कारणम्। ब्रह्म तु सर्वगुणदोषसंबन्धवर्जितमित्यतः 'ब्रह्मणि ते स्थिताः' इति युक्तम्। कर्मविषयं च 'समासमाभ्याम्' इत्यादि। 

warm regards

subrahmanian.v

 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Vineet Chaitanya <v...@iiit.ac.in> wrote:

On the basis of Shankar Bhashya on 1.3.38 last two sentences:

       It can be established that Shudras are entitled to acquire Brahmvidya through Bhagvadgeeta etc. Only वेदपूर्वक अध्ययन of Brahmvidyaa is prohibited. 

​The apashudradhikarana, could be dragged into anywhere. First it is based on the statement consequently in order । शुगस्य तदनादरश्रवणात्तदाद्रवणात्सूच्यते हि । १,३.३३ । क्षत्रियत्वगतेश्च । १,३.३४ । उत्तरत्र चैत्ररथेन लिङ्गात् । १,३.३५ । संस्कारपरामर्शात्तदभावाभिलापाच्च । १,३.३६ । तदभावनिर्धारणे च प्रवृत्तेः । १,३.३७ । श्रवणाध्ययनार्थप्रतिषेधात् । १,३.३८ ।

which bases on the etymological derivation of the word so as to conclude श्रवणाध्ययनार्थप्रतिषेधात्, and now one can debate only how how this statement and conclusion totally denies ब्रह्मविद्या to Shudra. It explicitly concludes श्रवण-अध्ययनार्थ as the प्रतिषेध and not knowing ब्रह्मविद्या by other means, as one can do read it with books or directly like विदुर who is by birth. The topic discussed mostly in these days, whether शूद्र is eligible to वेदाध्ययन and which is antecedent to ब्रह्मविद्या as described in उपनिषत्-s. And the topic could be elongated whether it is जातिशूद्र, which again is often discussed in many other forums, whether caste system वर्ण system is by birth or not. Many are fond of such discussions and this अपशूद्राधिकरण is heatedly discussed. And one can interpret the Bhashya sentences conveniently to support their views. 

Now our member wanted to write a Thesis on this अपशूद्राधिकरण with his own insights. Welcome. Anyhow here is a link on Vedic Research I found while Googling, an article on this Adhikarana,

http://onlineresearchjournalsssm.in/?page_id=2280

Some of the members might have been contributed to the article.

[hnbhat]

On Thursday, 3 April 2014 21:15:16 UTC+5:30, jyotiraj.2009 wrote:

I am pursuing PhD on Apashoodradhikarana of Brahmasootra (1.3.34-1.3.38), in which badarayna, all the bhaashykaras. and teekaakar have excluded shudras from brahmavidya. according to shankar, ramanuj, madhva, vallabh etc. sudra (by caste) is not qualified to undertake Brahmavidya. 

I have read whole bhashyas of  shankar, ramanuj, vallabh, madhva and nimbark but i couldn't get even a single line in which the would be  denying the cast system, or else supporting the sudras. kindly help me to find out some supporting lines.   

OK. Very fine. Please give the topic of your research specifically. It is a wellknown fact "Apashudradhikarana"  topic in general denies Vedadhikara to Shudra, which is anticipant for Vedanta (literally the final portion of Veda-s) and its contents. Now please give us briefly your idea that made you think the Shudra's are supported in any of the Bhashya's qualifying them for Vedadhyayana and Vedantadhyayana. Leave alone Brahmasootra. That is the way to approach a forum, to put forward your idea first and ask others' opinion. There should have been many earlier studies on this topic as it is of common interest of public today.

[hnbhat]

On Friday, 4 April 2014 03:41:23 UTC+5:30, Gitarthi wrote:

Badarayana lived in the Dwapara yuga and at his time the Shudras were not allowed to observe Tapa but in the Kali yuga  the Shudras have been allowed to to perform Tapa.

तस्मिन्द्वापरसंख्ये तु वर्तमाने युगक्षये  अधर्मश्चानृतं चैव ववृधे पुरुषर्षभ  |
तस्मिन्द्वापरसंख्याते तपो वैश्यान्समाविशत् न शूद्रो लभते धर्ममुग्रं तप्तुं नरर्षभ  |
हीनवर्णो नरश्रेष्ठ तप्यते सुमहत्तपः भविष्या शुद्रयोन्यां हि तपश्चर्या  कलौ युगे  |

There could have been such strictures on reading the Vedic texts too for the shudras in the Dwapara yuga. However there were cases where such strictures could be lifted in deserving cases, such as what happened in case of satyakama.

Not only in Dvapara, but even in Treta, Srirama, who is well praised as

रामो विग्रहवान् धर्मः साधुः सत्य पराक्रमः |

राजा सर्वस्य लोकस्य देवानाम् इव वासवः || ३-३७-१३||

cut off the head of शम्बूक, a शूद्र performing तपस् at the end of his rule. 

[Shrikanth Balthillaya]

regards
1) i want sarpas (naga sahasranama)sahasranaama  who are find it . pls give me that  information . mahabharatha gvve only 80 name. also any other imformation on that like it.

2) one of cause on this  elephant and snake. when see the elephant ,suddenly not fear about . but when see the snake we got  fear  suddenly. what is this. who one got it cause pls inform me. this not joke. one of the old age scholar gave the speech in this matter. when i  meet him. told about it . he tell, not remember it .i lost my remembering power .  so i selected this root for getting the  answer.  please help me.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Shrikanth,

Please make a separate thread and re post How is your question related to Brahma Sutras? Thanks.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

अपशूद्राधिकरणम् --

पाणिनीयम् - जैमिनीयम् - यजुर्वेदः - धर्मशास्त्रम्

Panini says there are two kinds of शूद्राः --

शूद्राणाम् अनिरवसितानाम् (2-4-10) - this सूत्रम् is for द्वन्द्वैकवद्भाव in cases like तक्षायस्कारम् , रजकतन्तुवायम् etc.. चाण्डालमृतपाः (बहुवचनम्) is the counter example.

Here Patanjali rakes up a discussion --

what is ,meant by अनिरवसितानाम् ?

.... एवं तर्हि याज्ञात् कर्मणः अनिरवसितानाम् ?

Kaiyata and Nagesa explain that - शूद्राणां पञ्चयज्ञानुष्ठाने अधिकारो’स्ति इति भावः । 

तस्मात् शूद्रः यज्ञे अनवक्लुप्तः (यजुर्वेदः) - here the word यज्ञ means अग्निहोत्रादि( that means the fields wherein शूद्र is prohibited by धर्मशास्त्राणि ।

भाष्यम् - 

एवमपि तक्षायस्कारं रजकतन्तुवायम् इति न सिद्ध्यति (because carpenter , goldsmit, washerman and weaver  do not have अधिकार in a यज्ञ)

उद्योतः - तक्षादीनामिति । तेष्ं प्रतिलोमत्वदिति भावः।

(प्रतिलोमजातः तक्षा तु अनुलोमजातरथकाराद्भिन्न एव । तेन न रथकाराधिकरणविरोधः)

एवं तर्हि पात्रात् बहिष्कृतानाम् । यैर्भुक्ते पात्रं संस्कारेण शुद्ध्यति ते अनिरवसिताः । यैर्भुक्ते पात्रं संस्कारेणापि न शुद्ध्यति ते निरवसिता इति।

पदमञ्जरी (and Nagesa) explains - ’भस्मना शुद्ध्यते कांस्यम्’ - इत्यादिन स्मृतिकारैः उक्तेन न शुद्ध्यति।

Finally those शूद्राः who are not allowed for सहपङ्क्तिभोजनम् are meant by Panini by the word निरवसिताः।

पदमञ्जरी also explains that the word शूद्र in the पाणिनिसूत्रम् means त्रैवर्णिकेतर but not शूद्रत्वविशिष्ट - निरवसितेषु तदभावात् ।

Here are स्मृती --

भस्मना शुद्ध्यते कांस्यं ताम्रम् आम्लेन शुद्ध्यति।

रजसा शुध्यते नारी नदी वेगेन शुद्ध्यति॥ ( वृद्धचाणक्यः 6-3)

भस्मना शुद्ध्यते कांस्यं सुरया यन्न लिप्यते । (आपस्तम्बस्मृतिः 8-1)

                                          ********

With the knowledge of पूर्वमीमांसा (1000 अधिकरणानि roughly) one can have a better understanding of उत्तरमीमांसा ।

There is similarity between शूद्रस्य अनधिकाराधिकरणम् (पू मी 6-1-7) and अपशूद्राधिकरणम्  । In fact, the term अपशूद्र is used by Jaimini - अपि वा वेदनिर्देशात् अपशूद्राणां प्रतीयते (6-1-7-33) --

अपशूद्राणाम् = त्रैवर्णिकानाम् -- अपगतः शूद्रः यस्मात् सः अपशूद्रः = त्रैवर्णिकः।

शास्त्रदीपिका of पार्थसारथिमिश्र --

किम् अग्निहोत्रादिषु चतुर्णामपि वर्णानाम् अधिकारः उत अपशूद्राणां त्रयाणाम् इति । तदर्थद्मिदं विचार्यते ....।

Here are the जैमिनिसूत्राणि (13) in this अधिकरणम् --

चातुर्वर्ण्यम् अविशेषात् (25) ......निमित्तार्थेन बादरिः, तस्मात् सर्वाधिकारं स्यात् (27) ... वैगुण्यन्नेति चेत् (30) न काम्यत्वात् (31) ... अपि व वेदद्निर्देशात् अपशूद्राणां प्रतीयते (33) ... अवैद्यत्वात् अभावः कर्मणि स्यात् (37) तथा चन्यार्थदर्शनम्(38)

शस्त्रदीपिका (सिद्धान्तः) --

मन्त्रवत्सु च अनधीतवेदस्य कुतो’धिकारः ? कुतस्तरां च अनग्नेरग्निसाध्येषु ? तस्मात् त्रयाणाम् अधिकारः।

Then what about निषादस्थपत्यधिकरणम् (this topic is discussed in BVP) ?--

स्थपतिः निषादः स्यात् शब्दसामर्थ्यात् (पू मी सू 6-1-13-51)

शस्त्रदीपिका --

'ऐन्द्रं वास्तुमयं चरुं निर्वपेत् ’ इति प्रकृत्य श्रूयते ' एतया निषादस्थपतिं याजयेत्’ इति । तत्र संशयः - किं द्विजातिरेव यो निषादानाम् आधिपत्यं करोति तस्यात्र अधिकारः , षष्ठीसमास एवायम् - उत निषाद एव यः स्थपतिः तस्य , कर्मधारयश्चायमिति ।

सिद्धान्तः - निषाद एव स्थपतिरतः श्रुत्या प्रतीयते ।

              तेन श्रुतिबलादज्ञो नाहिताग्निश्च सन्नपि ॥

               निषाद एव स्थपतिः कर्मण्यत्राधिकारभाक्।

मयूखमल्लिकाव्याख्या सोमनाथस्य --

निषादो नाम ब्राह्मणात् शूद्रायाम् उत्पन्नः स तु शूद्रधर्मयुक्तः । अत एव आपस्तम्बाचार्यैः ’ हविष्कृदाधावे’ति शूद्रस्येत्ययं निषाद एव शूद्रत्वेन व्यवहृतः । एवं च शूद्रयाजनस्य निषिद्धत्वात् अतिक्रान्तनिषेधानामेव याजकत्वं बोध्यम् ।

Earlier in रथकाराधिकारधिकरणम् , a रथकार is allowed to perform अग्न्याधान following the मन्त्रवर्ण -

वर्षासु रथकारोग्निम् आदधीत ( वसन्ते ब्राह्मणो’ग्निमादधीत ग्रीष्मे राजन्यः शरदि वैश्यः)

धर्मशास्त्रम् --

माहिष्योग्रौ प्रजायेते विट्शूद्राङ्गनयोः नृपात्।

शूद्रायां करणो वैश्यात् ।

माहिष्येण करण्यां तु रथकारः प्रजायते ॥

the caste system in India is highly complicated and difficult to even to understand without the knowledge of sub-castes(born thru inter-caste - marriages) , the अनुलोमand प्रतिलोम विवाह and their impact .

The student is advised to go thru different स्मृतिs first and then मीमांसा and then अपशूद्राधिकरणम्।

She may take the help of a good traditional scholar who has studied all these disciplines and collaborate.

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Personal Website: www.korada.org

[Shankarji Jha]

Thanks, Lorada-mahaabhaagaah for  the explanation. On Aniravasit; why should this simple meaning of 'Aniravasita' not be considered ; those  whose works Shruva, other iron tools etc. and clothes etc. are  useful to Yajnas are Aniravasita?    

Shankarji Jha,
Professor of Sanskrit,
Deptt of Sanskrit,
Panjab University,
Chandigarh-160014, INDIA

---

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 23:02:01 +0530
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} brahmasootra apashoodradhikarana
From: kora...@gmail.com
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

I had almost decided to keep silent on this thread, but I think I will after this one posting. May I venture to suggest that you adopt an analytical approach that takes away modern emotion about varNa and evaluates this topic objectively?

 

1. As far as advaita vedAnta is concerned, AtmavijnAna is one thing, study of the veda is another. Please re-read Sankara's commentary on the very first sUtra, to see how effectively he decouples the two. There is no self-contradiction in the bhAshya. The contradiction lies in the modern expectation that study of the veda is somehow a guarantor of liberation in vedAntic terms. That it is not, is one of the first things taught by almost every vedAnta sampradAya. One can be a highly learned scholar of the veda and yet remain completely enmeshed in saMsAra. Another can be completely innocent of what passes for education and yet be a jnAnI. The bhakti oriented schools of vedAnta will all say similar things about the bhakta who is fit for moksha as well.

 

2. In theory, "everything is brahm, then a sudra should also be called as a brahm" sounds like a fine enough argument, but it completely misses the point. The jnAnI, a samadarzI, is not necessarily a "social reformer," the way our contemporary mentality expects him or her to be. From the jnAnI's perspective, everything changes, because he no longer values worldly differences, but precisely because he doesn't value worldly differences, he doesn't feel impelled to go around "making a difference" in the world. So, for the rest of the world, nothing changes.

 

3. The author of brahmavidyAbharaNa is not Sankara bhagavatpAda. If you wish to understand what Sankara himself says about this adhikaraNa, the corresponding bhAshya is simple enough to grasp. I daresay the bhAshya-s of other vedAnta traditions on this adhikaraNa are also not all that complicated. Sankara explicitly says that listening to the itihAsa-purANa is for all varNa-s and explicitly affirms a route to AtmajnAna through that. Please note that Sankara never talks about "reading" any text, even for the brAhmaNa varNa. It is always about listening, SravaNa, from which everything else follows.

4. The word vidhura means widower. Hardly anyone chooses to break ASrama vyavasthA by becoming a widower. It just so happens that a wife may predecease the man, leaving the gRhastha an anASramin. Assuming that other qualifications for knowledge exist (again, go back to Sankara's introduction for this), such a man does have adhikAra. Without a wife, he loses adhikAra for some significant ritual actions, but not for jnAna - that is the conclusion. Similarly with women with vAcaknavI, i.e. gArgI, of one of the upanishat-s, or men like raikva, mentioned in another upanishat, who are affirmed to have adhikAra for jnAna. Sankara does not say that such people somehow have adhikAra for certain significant ritual actions, which require a husband-wife pair, inspite of being single. In any case, the argument you make about Sankara's flexibility towards those who do not fit into an ASrama hardly carries over identically to the varNa part of traditional society. This is because the analogy to people who don't fit neatly into one or the other ASrama can only be people who don't fit neatly into one or the other varNa, not people who belong clearly to one of the varNa-s.

 

5. Also, may I suggest that you complement a study of the texts with a study of the ground realities, as known from history? In the advaita tradition, you have recorded evidence of various kinds of ascetics who were not born into the brAhmaNa varNa. If you read up on the Dasanami Akhadas and their membership, or if you visit a Kumbha Mela and observe the Dasanamis in person, you will find a huge number of them who were born in families that are technically SUdra or of disputed varNa. Nowadays, you will find a number of women too, but note that women renunciants were not non-existent even in the past. These are people who have followed the traditional path of renouncing all their family connections, property and social standing, in pursuit of moksha. From the non-advaita traditions also, you will find lots of examples that are not brAhmaNa men, dating back to more than hundreds of years. These are well known enough and I don't have to list them here.

You can hardly blame ancient authors from various vedAnta traditions for not sharing the colonial and post-colonial hang ups about caste in India. Finally, for a young scholar pursuing a PhD, a piece of unsolicited advice - you don't have to be apologetic about any aspect of India's past and you don't have to assign blame to anybody for any wrongs, real or perceived. It is what it is, and your research would benefit from not being preloaded with value judgements.

  

Best wishes,

Vidyasankar

[s tekal]

Sadara Pranams,

1. 'striyO vaishyAs- tathA shUdrAs- tE&pi yAnti parAngatim' - Gita. 9.32

2. 'jnAnamAtrE yadyapi sarvAshraminAm adhikAraH' - Mundaka pithikA

3. vidhurAdInAm    'aviruddaih'    purushamAtrasambandhibiH.......vidyAyAH sambhavati' - sU.3.4.38

4. Similarly sU.1.3.33-38, Br.Ar. 1.4.10, ChAndOgya. 8.7.2, mOksha dharma. 318.

All these refer to BrahmavidyA/JnAna sAdhanA for Shudra and others as well (who are not eligible for vEda karma).

As for KarmAdhikara you can find many quotes all along the BhAshyas and pUrva mImAmsa.

For example:

1. Yo hi yam pratividhiyatE sa tasya dharmO na tu yO yEna svanushthAtum shakyatE, chOdanA-lakShanatvAt dharmasya. na ca rAgAdi vashAt prachyutiH. niyama shAstrasya baleeyastvAt' (sU.Bh. 3.4.40)

2. tyaja dharmam adharmam ca ubhE satyAnrtE tyaja. ubhE satyAnrtE tyaktvA yEna tyajasi tat tyaja - (moksha dharma 316.40)

3.'lOke&smin dvividhA nishthA...... karmayOgEna yOginAm' - Gita.

4. 'jyAyasi chEt karmanastE ...... niyOjayasi kEshava...' - Gita, etc, etc.

May I take the liberty to earnestly suggest this:

Since Dharma is directly related to Karma and adhikAra it is rightly a traditional observation that One has to deliberate on the meanings of words/phrases like sarvakarma sannyAsa, adhikAra, etc. while taking on such a tough and sensitive research subject....

Namaste

Somu Tekal 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Since Dharma is directly related to Karma and adhikAra it is rightly a traditional observation that

​​

One has to deliberate on the meanings of words/phrases like sarvakarma sannyAsa, adhikAra, etc. while taking on such a tough and sensitive research subject....

Namaste

Somu Tekal 

Just a point here. Is the deliberation on the meaning of the words quoted as given by the traditional Acharya-s who have given the shade we get today or liberal deliberation on the point view of the research topic as we can get from the dictionaries?

​It makes some difference or may make great difference. I am not much interested in the topic anyhow. Just a suggestion. The second assumes the researcher is the final authority on the interpretation than producing the views and interpretations of Acharya-s as he has understood himself from the context. This makes the difference in the result of the result of the research too.​