Brahma-Sūtra 1.3.35

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.3.35 by Roma Bose:

“(jānaśruti was hot a śūdra) also because we know of (his) kṣatriyahood from the indication, (viz. the fact of his being mentioned) later on with caitraratha.”

Nimbārka’s commentary (Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha):

“Because we know of the Kṣatriyahood” of Jānaśruti “from the indication” viz. that ‘later on’ he was mentioned together with Caitraratha Abhipratārin, Kṣatriya, in the passage: ‘Now, when Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratārin Kākṣaseni were being served food, a religious student begged of them’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.3.5^[1]), Jānaśruti was not a Śūdra.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

From this reason also, the author, points out, the Kṣatriyahood of Jānaśruti is known.

His grief alone has arisen; hence he was called a ‘Śūdra’ by the sage; this being so, the Śūdrahood of Jānaśruti was not due to this caste. Why? “Because we know of (his) Kṣatriyahood”; i.e. also because we know of his Kṣatriyahood from the fact that in the introductory passage, viz. ‘A plentiful giver, one preparing many food’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.1.1), he is known to be a lord of gifts and a giver of much well-cooked food, from the fact of his sending the door-keeper, known from the passage: ‘He said to the door-keeper’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.1.5) and from the fact of his giving golden ornaments, chariot and daughter to Raikva. Having, thus, stated the marks contained in the introductory text and proving the Kṣatriyahood of Jānaśruti, the author goes on to show the mark, contained in the concluding text of the saṃvarga-vidyā, according to the maxim of the ‘crow’s eye’,^[2]—the term “and” (in the sūtra) referring to both—, in the words: “And from the indication, (viz. the fact of his being mentioned) later on with Caitraratha”; i.e. “from the indication”, viz. that Jānaśruti was mentioned together with Caitraratha who is ascertained to be a Kṣatriya from the fact of his association with a well-known priest of Kṣatriyas. Thus, in the concluding text, viz.: ‘Now, when Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratarin Kākṣaseni were being served food by a cook,^[3] a religious student begged of them’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.3.5), Caitraratha, named Abhipratārin is mentioned. This is the sense: On the enquiry: ‘who were the two that were being served’ ‘by the cook’, i.e. by one who superintends over the oven?—the text says: Śunaka’s descendant, the priest of the Kapi clan, and Kakṣasena’s descendant, named Abhipratārin, the king. When these two sat down to eat, they were asked for alms.

If it be asked: Whence do you know that Abhipratārin was a Caitraratha? (a descendant of Citraratha),—we reply: He was so, because of his connection with Kāpeya, (i.e. descendant of Kapi), the priest of Citraratha. From the text: ‘The Kāpeyas made Citraratha perform sacrifice by this’ (Tāṇḍya-mahā-brāhmaṇa 20.12.5^[4]), it is well-known that the Kāpeyas were the priests of Citraratha. The term ‘by this’ means ‘by the Dvi-rātra’.

If it be objected: Very well, let Abhipratārin be Caitraratha because of his connection with a priest of Citra; but what proof is there of his Kṣatriyahood?—(we reply): The text: ‘From him was born a king of Kṣatriyas, named Caitraratha’, is the proof. The words ‘from him’ mean ‘from Citraratha’.

A Kṣatriya being referred to in the end, Jānaśruti, mentioned in the beginning, too, must be a Kṣatriya, since in one and the same vidyā there is the mention, as a rule, of persons of the same class,—this is the meaning of the aphorism. Moreover, the Kṣatriyahood of Abhipratārin being ascertained in the end on the ground of his association with Kāpeya, a Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriyahood of Jānaśruti, too, is ascertained in the beginning on the ground of his association with Raikva,—this is the sense.^[5]

Comparative views of Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha:

Reading different, viz. They break it into two different sūtras: ‘Kṣatriyatvā gateś ca’ (sūtra 34), and ‘uttaratra-liṅgāt’ (sūtra 35^[6]).

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

Reading different, viz. ‘Kṣatriyatvā-gateś ca.....’^[7] instead of ‘Kṣatriyatva-avagateś ca....’.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva.

[2]:

The maxim of the ‘crow’s eye’ means as follows; Crows are supposed to have only one eye, which as occasion requires, moves from the cavity on one side into that of another. The maxim is used of a word which appears only once in a sentence, but which applies to two portions of it, or to two persons or things, fulfilling a double purpose. The maxim may be said to approximate to the English one of ‘killing two birds with one stone’. Vide Laukika-nyāyāñjali, Part I, pp. 12-13. Likewise, here the phrase: ‘Kṣatriyatvāvagateḥ’ fulfils a double purpose, meaning both ‘on account of knowing the Kṣatriyahood of Caitraratha Abhipratārin’, and ‘on account of knowing the Kṣatriyahood of Jānaśruti’. See p. 200, n. 1.

[3]:

The word ‘sūdena’ not found in the original text. Vide Chāndogya-upaniṣad 4.3.5, p. 189.

[4]:

P. 561, vol. 2.

[5]:

Thus, altogether three reasons are advanced—why Jānaśruti is to be taken as a Kṣatriya:—

(a) In the beginning, Jānaśruti is said to be practising charity, feeding people on a large scale, which proves him to be a Kṣatriya.

(b) In the end, Abhipratārin is mentioned, and Abhipratārin being a Kṣatriya, Jānaśruti must be so, since persons of the class are entitled to the same Vidyā.

(c) Abhipratārin, mentioned in the end, is said to be a Kṣatriya, because of his connection with a Brāhmaṇa (viz. Kāpeya), and hence Jānaśruti, mentioned in the beginning must be so, because of his connection with a Brāhmaṇa (viz, Raikva).

[6]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 1.3.34-35, pp. 337-338, Part 1, Madras ed. Some editions read ‘Kṣatriyatva-avagateśca’. Vide Bombay ed., p. 326.

The Benares of Vedānta-dīpa, reads ‘Kṣatriyatva-gateś ca’ (p. 60); but the Brindavan ed. of Vedanta-sāra, reads ‘Kṣatriyatva-avagateś ca’ (p. 46).

[7]:

Quoted by Śrīkaṇṭha 1.3.34-35, pp. 438, 480, Part 5.