Brahma Sutras (Shankaracharya)

by George Thibaut | 1890 | 203,611 words

English translation of the Brahma sutras (aka. Vedanta Sutras) with commentary by Shankaracharya (Shankara Bhashya): One of the three canonical texts of the Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy. The Brahma sutra is the exposition of the philosophy of the Upanishads. It is an attempt to systematise the various strands of the Upanishads which form the ...

34. Grief of him (i.e. of Jānaśruti) (arose) on account of his hearing a disrespectful speech about himself; on account of the rushing on of that (grief) (Raikva called him Śūdra); for it (the grief) is pointed at (by Raikva).

(In the preceding adhikaraṇa) the exclusiveness of the claim of men to knowledge has been refuted, and it has been declared that the gods, &c. also possess such a claim. The present adhikaraṇa is entered on for the purpose of removing the doubt whether, as the exclusiveness of the claim of twice-born men is capable of refutation, the Śūdras also possess such a claim.

The pūrvapakṣin maintains that the Śūdras also have such a claim, because they may be in the position of desiring that knowledge, and because they are capable of it; and because there is no scriptural prohibition (excluding them from knowledge) analogous to the text, 'Therefore[1] the Śūdra is unfit for sacrificing' (Taitt. Saṃh. VII, 1, 1, 6). The reason, moreover, which disqualifies the Śūdras for sacrificial works, viz. their being without the sacred fires, does not invalidate their qualification for knowledge, as knowledge can be apprehended by those also who are without the fires. There is besides an inferential mark supporting the claim of the Śūdras; for in the so-called saṃvarga-knowledge he (Raikva) refers to Jānaśruti Pautrāyaṇa, who wishes to learn from him, by the name of Śūdra 'Fie, necklace and carnage be thine, O Śūdra, together with the cows' (Ch. Up. IV, 2, 3). Smṛti moreover speaks of Vidūra and others who were born from Śūdra mothers as possessing eminent knowledge.--Hence the Śūdra has a claim to the knowledge of Brahman.

To this we reply that the Śūdras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters; but a Śūdra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecedent the upanayana-ceremony, and that ceremony belongs to the three (higher) castes only. The mere circumstance of being in a condition of desire does not furnish a reason for qualification, if capability is absent. Mere temporal capability again does not constitute a reason for qualification, spiritual capability being required in spiritual matters. And spiritual capability is (in the case of the Śūdras) excluded by their being excluded from the study of the Veda.--The Vedic statement, moreover, that the Śūdra is unfit for sacrifices intimates, because founded on reasoning, that he is unfit for knowledge also; for the argumentation is the same in both cases[2]--With reference to the pūrvapakṣin's opinion that the fact of the word 'Śūdra' being enounced in the saṃvarga-knowledge constitutes an inferential mark (of the Śūdra's qualification for knowledge), we remark that that inferential mark has no force, on account of the absence of arguments. For the statement of an inferential mark possesses the power of intimation only in consequence of arguments being adduced; but no such arguments are brought forward in the passage quoted.[3] Besides, the word 'Śūdra' which occurs in the saṃvarga-vidyā would establish a claim on the part of the Śūdras to that one vidyā only, not to all vidyās. In reality, however, it is powerless, because occurring in an arthavāda, to establish the Śūdras' claim to anything.--The word 'Śūdra' can moreover be made to agree with the context in which it occurs in the following manner. When Jānaśruti Pautrāyaṇa heard himself spoken of with disrespect by the flamingo ('How can you speak of him, being what he is, as if he were like Raikva with the car?' IV, i, 3), grief (suc) arose in his mind, and to that grief the ṛṣi Raikva alludes with the word Śūdra, in order to show thereby his knowledge of what is remote. This explanation must be accepted because a (real) born Śūdra is not qualified (for the saṃvarga-vidyā. If it be asked how the grief (suc) which had arisen in Jānasruti's mind can be referred to by means of the word Śūdra, we reply: On account of the rushing on (ādravaṇa) of the grief. For we may etymologise the word Śūdra by dividing it into its parts, either as 'he rushed into grief (Śucam abhidudrāva) or as 'grief rushed on him,' or as 'he in his grief rushed to Raikva;' while on the other hand it is impossible to accept the word in its ordinary conventional sense. The circumstance (of the king actually being grieved) is moreover expressly touched upon in the legend[4].

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The commentaries explain 'therefore' by 'on account of his being devoid of the three sacred fires.' This explanation does not, however, agree with the context of the Taitt. Saṃh.

[2]:

The Śūdra not having acquired a knowledge of Vedic matters in the legitimate way, i. e. through the study of the Veda under the guidance of a guru, is unfit for sacrifices as well as for vidyā.

[3]:

The liṅga contained in the word 'Śūdra' has no proving power as it occurs in an arthavāda-passage which has no authority if not connected with a corresponding injunctive passage. In our case the liṅga in the arthavāda-passage is even directly contradicted by those injunctions which militate against the Śūdras' qualification for Vedic matters.

[4]:

Haṃsavākyād ātmano'nādaraṃ śrutvā jānaśruteḥ śug utpannety etad eva kathaṃ gamyate yenāsau śūdraśabdena sūcyate tatrāha spṛśyate ceti. Ānanda Giri.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: