Ramanuja and Non Brahmins

(1) Penitencefor Pride--- As told by Mukulbhai Kalarthi, Ahmedabad


Ramanujacharyalived in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka between 1017 AD and 1137 AD. He lived for 120years.


Onaccount of old age the renowned Vaishnava preceptor and propounder of thephilosophy of Vishistadwaita (Qualified Monism), Ramanuja had become very weak.Therefore, while going to the river for his daily bath he had to take the helpof someone.


Going tothe river he would rest his hand on the shoulder of one of his Brahmindisciples. But while returning home, he took the help of a disciple, belongingto the lowest caste Shudra.


Theorthodox people were greatly perturbed at this peculiar behaviour of thepreceptor. Therefore one day some of them got together and went to Ramanuja andsaid to him, “Revered teacher, should you desire, you can take the help of theuntouchable disciple before your bath. But once after the bath you have madeyourself clean, you ought not to touch him”.
Thepreceptor replied, “Brothers, I place my hand on the shoulder of him, whom youconsider an untouchable, after my bath, only to wash away the dirt of pride,which still sticks to me because of my belonging to the so called highestcaste. And this dirt cannot be washed away with mere water!”





(2) Storyof Kanchipurna (Thiru Kachi Nambi)-- As told by Swami Sivananda

“One ofRamanuja’s disciples, by name Kanchipurna, was serving in the temple atKancheepuram. Although a Shudra, Kanchipurna was so very pious and good thatthe people of the place had great respect and reverence for him. At present,there is a temple at Kancheepuram where Kanchipurna's image has been installedand where he is worshipped as a saint.


YoungRamanuja came under Kanchipurna's influence and had such reverence for him thathe invited him to dinner in his house. Ramanuja's intention was to attend onKanchipurna and personally serve him at dinner and himself take mealsafterwards. Unfortunately, Kanchipurna came to dinner when Ramanuja was not athome, and took his meals being served by Ramanuja's wife. When Ramanujareturned home, he found the house washed and his wife bathing for having servedmeals to a Shudra. This irritated Ramanuja very much and turned him against hiswife who was an orthodox lady of a different social ideal. After a fewincidents of this nature, Ramanuja abandoned the life of a householder andbecame a Sannyasin”--- Swami Sivananda of Divine Life Society




(3) Acmeof Compassion –As told by Swami Ramdas of Anandashram


“Youmust have heard of the three great teachers : Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa.They have established their systems of philosophy in India. Ramanuja went to aMaster and asked him to initiate him. The Master gave him God’s name and alsoadvised him not to give this NAME to anybody, adding if he did so, he would goto hell. At once Ramanuja went to the top of the local temple (at SriPerumpudur near Madras) and shouted, “ I am going to give you all a NAME whichwill save you. My master has given me that Name”. He uttered the name loudly sothat everybody could here.


(God’sname he uttered was OM NAMO NARAYANA)


TheMaster heard about it and asked why he did so in spite of his warning.Ramanuja’s reply was, “I am prepared to go to hell a hundred times if I cansave thousands”.

london swaminathan said:

(3)Acmeof Compassion –As told by Swami Ramdas of Anandashram


“Youmust have heard of the three great teachers : Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa.They have established their systems of philosophy in India. Ramanuja went to aMaster and asked him to initiate him. The Master gave him God’s name and alsoadvised him not to give this NAME to anybody, adding if he did so, he would goto hell. At once Ramanuja went to the top of the local temple (at SriPerumpudur near Madras) and shouted, “ I am going to give you all a NAME whichwill save you. My master has given me that Name”. He uttered the name loudly sothat everybody could here.


(God’sname he uttered was OM NAMO NARAYANA)


TheMaster heard about it and asked why he did so in spite of his warning.Ramanuja’s reply was, “I am prepared to go to hell a hundred times if I cansave thousands”.

Click to expand...

This legend of Ramanuja shouting from the temple top is vehemently denied by almost all vaishnavites, because the legend endorses non-brahmins getting converted to vaishnavam in this way.

Have you any supporting evidence?

Dear Sangom
Thanks for reading the post.
I have no evidence.But it is written by lot of people.

I use Kausalya Hart's Tamil for Beginners book in London University and the book is used in six American Universities as well. Lesson 23 is titled OM NAMO NARAYANA. The same Ramanuja story is given. Only difference is Not from the top of the temple, but in front of the temple.

I dont know how it got in to wider circulation.

Sri Vaishnavam Practices

sangom said:

This legend of Ramanuja shouting from the temple top is vehemently denied by almost all vaishnavites, because the legend endorses non-brahmins getting converted to vaishnavam in this way.

Have you any supporting evidence?

Click to expand...

My humble contribution to this debate:

https://www.trsiyengar.com/id283.shtml

In a web page titled “Sri Vaishnavam Practices”, a gentleman named Sri TRS Iengar, [Son of Late Sri T. S. Ramabathrachariar, [(of Mukkur) Ex. Village Magistrate, Ladavaram Village, Arcot Taluk, {formerly with Wallajah Taluk but now in Arcot Taluk} North Arcot District in Tamilnadu] who gave teachings on Srivaishnavam & Srivaishnavism ] has written the following:

Sri Ramanuja, His life before & after "Sanyasam" (Sainthood)
……………………..
When Sri Ramanuja came out and walked towards the temple, his gaze fell upon the large number of people around the area and a thought occurred to him. He asked both his disciples to collect all the people near the tall compound wall of the temple. He then climbed the wall and from atop the wall he shouted to the crowd below asking them to repeat thrice a mantra, which he recited. Ramanuja cried aloud “Om Namo Narayana”, and the crowd repeated it in chorus. When this was done for three times, Ramanuja explained to them that this mantra would rid them of their bondage of past karma and pave the way to Heaven.

Thereafter, realising that he had not kept his promise to his Guru, Ramanuja went to Thiru Koshtiyur Nambi and begged his pardon. The Guru asked what he gained by revealing the secret to the public.Ramanuja replied “I am certain to reach hell for having disobeyed you; but against the loss of one man so many others have gained heaven.” The Guru was spellbound by this reply.

Does hearing the name convert? Or just save? Do you have to convert to save? That sounds a bit like I accept Jesus as my Lord, etc etc.

(2)Storyof Kanchipurna (Thiru Kachi Nambi)-- As told by Swami Sivananda

“One ofRamanuja’s disciples, by name Kanchipurna, was serving in the temple atKancheepuram. Although a Shudra, Kanchipurna was so very pious and good thatthe people of the place had great respect and reverence for him. At present,there is a temple at Kancheepuram where Kanchipurna's image has been installedand where he is worshipped as a saint.

Click to expand...

Wow! Am I surprised to read this...

Why would a realized soul like Swami Sivananda want to use the word although a Sudra?

That would translate that Sudras are bad and not pious and Kanchipurna was an exception.

It should have been worded that Kanchipurna was a pious and good person and he was Sudra by birth.

I really wonder if Swami Sivananda said these exact words or it got misinterpreted.

I feel if we want to talk about religion and preach about God..we need to respect all humans to start with.

Naina_Marbus said:

My humble contribution to this debate:

https://www.trsiyengar.com/id283.shtml

In a web page titled “Sri Vaishnavam Practices”, a gentleman named Sri TRS Iengar, [Son of Late Sri T. S. Ramabathrachariar, [(of Mukkur) Ex. Village Magistrate, Ladavaram Village, Arcot Taluk, {formerly with Wallajah Taluk but now in Arcot Taluk} North Arcot District in Tamilnadu] who gave teachings on Srivaishnavam & Srivaishnavism ] has written the following:

Sri Ramanuja, His life before & after "Sanyasam" (Sainthood)
……………………..
When Sri Ramanuja came out and walked towards the temple, his gaze fell upon the large number of people around the area and a thought occurred to him. He asked both his disciples to collect all the people near the tall compound wall of the temple. He then climbed the wall and from atop the wall he shouted to the crowd below asking them to repeat thrice a mantra, which he recited. Ramanuja cried aloud “Om Namo Narayana”, and the crowd repeated it in chorus. When this was done for three times, Ramanuja explained to them that this mantra would rid them of their bondage of past karma and pave the way to Heaven.

Thereafter, realising that he had not kept his promise to his Guru, Ramanuja went to Thiru Koshtiyur Nambi and begged his pardon. The Guru asked what he gained by revealing the secret to the public.Ramanuja replied “I am certain to reach hell for having disobeyed you; but against the loss of one man so many others have gained heaven.” The Guru was spellbound by this reply.

Click to expand...

hi
i think many vaishnavas never followed sri ramanujacharya......some prefer vedanta desika /or manavala mamuni......

if real vaishnavas follow as per ramanuja...its real a great spiritual revolution.....

Dear Renuka

Sivananda's words are taken from the DLS (Divine Life Society) website.
I believe these were his own words.
But better check it with the books written by him.
We must look at it in the background of his other writings.
His contribution to Hinduism is great.
Because of him only, Rishikesh became world famous.
I had been to his Ashram at Rishikesh and stayed there on a full man day in 1977.
It was a beautiful experience ,evergreen in mind!


Dear all

I have read your comments under this topic. Very informative.Thanks.

I am going to Chennai tonight.
I may not be able in a position to answer any queries for the next one week.

Raji Ram said:

Dear Renu,

I think by writing / saying the word relating to the human made four varNas,
it is understood that the varNa is ONLY by birth! Am I correct? :decision:

Click to expand...

Dear RR ji,

Varna has always been Birth based and I see no problem in that......all these so called Guna based Varnas are just sugar coated words and for people who feel they need to be elevated.

I call that the "Underware Syndrome"..that is for the Upliftment of the Down Trodden.

Let each person be themselves...by elevating a person and calling him Guna Varna..we are actually insulting his origins.

One just needs to be contended and confident of themselves whether they are born as a Brahmana or a Sudra or anything else in between.

Dear Renu,

I wrote that the varNa is only by birth to imply that the words 'although a Sudra' is written in NO offense.

It automatically means 'although a Sudra by birth'. Those days brahmins were even addressed as 'sAmi'

by those born in other varNas


P.S: I too hate to use the word 'sudra' to denote someone!

Raji Ram said:

Dear Renu,

I wrote that the varNa is only by birth to imply that the words 'although a Sudra' is written in NO offense.

It automatically means 'although a Sudra by birth'. Those days brahmins were even addressed as 'sAmi'

by those born in other varNas

P.S: I too hate to use the word 'sudra' to denote someone!

Click to expand...

Dear RR ji,


There is nothing wrong with the word Sudra or Brahmana,Kshatriya and Vaishya.

All are just Varnas and neither offensive nor compliments.

The terminology Sudra is not an offensive..it is the thought of looking down upon someone's origins is the actual offense...by saying that even though he is a Sudra but he was good and pious.

That is offensive..cos that denotes as if the person is an exception to the rule.

renuka said:

Dear RR ji,

Varna has always been Birth based and I see no problem in that......all these so called Guna based Varnas are just sugar coated words and for people who feel they need to be elevated.

I call that the "Underware Syndrome"..that is for the Upliftment of the Down Trodden.

Let each person be themselves...by elevating a person and calling him Guna Varna..we are actually insulting his origins.

One just needs to be contended and confident of themselves whether they are born as a Brahmana or a Sudra or anything else in between.

Click to expand...

Once again, I have to write something which may be unpleasant reading for many today.

Bhagavadgita IX-32 clarifies that StriyaH, vaisyaH and SudraH are all pApayOnis or base births. None of the methods given for the so-called "spiritual upliftment" was permitted to be practised by the Shudras, except that, a sufficiently rich Sudra could have any vedic sacrifice got performed with his wealth through officiating brAhmaNa priests but the Sudra himself would not be allowed anywhere near the hearing distance of the mantras chanted in the yAgasAla.

Sivananda was a brahmin and he lived his glorious years when brahmin superiority was ruling our country. (In contemporary euphemism, it should be "the meek and scholarly brAhmaNas were held in high esteem by all other sections of the hindu society because the brAhmaNas were superior in spiritual progress, etc.) So, Sivananda must have used the word "although a Sudra" to indicate that the said Kachipurna was an exception to the rule that shudras are pApayOnis, and such exceptions possibly proved the rule in those days.

Once again, this is one example of the dichotomy of putting too much emphasis on a so-called "sanAtana dharma".

sangom said:

So, Sivananda must have used the word "although a Sudra" to indicate that the said Kachipurna was an exception to the rule that shudras are pApayOnis, and such exceptions possibly proved the rule in those days.

Once again, this is one example of the dichotomy of putting too much emphasis on a so-called "sanAtana dharma".

Click to expand...

Dear Sangom ji,

I feel an exception to the rule style of thinking is actually insulting a person....what ever happened to Samadarshinah(if it actually exists) of a realized Soul?

renuka said:

Dear Sangom ji,

I feel an exception to the rule style of thinking is actually insulting a person....what ever happened to Samadarshinah(if it actually exists) of a realized Soul?

Click to expand...

Smt. Renuka,

I don't consider Sivananda as a "realized soul"; that usage itself is faulty and/or laughable, because, a soul does not realize. Secondly, when Sivananda wrote/said those words, it was not considered as insulting to any person, just as when Krishna said his great finding that women, visyas and sudras were all pApayOnis or sinful births.

May be "samadarsinaH" will mean that their own approach to all these will be impartial but one cannot expect that a samadarSin will view a dog as an elephant, a cow as a dog and a chandaala as an elephant and so on! If the samadarsin sees a dog coming barking towards him/her, he will surely take a stick or club to save himself from the animal's wrath.

Dear Sangom ji,


The verse in Geeta goes as:

mam hi partha vyapasrityaye
'pi syuh papa-yonayah
striyo vaisyas tatha sudras
te 'pi yanti param gatim​

Click to expand...

It translates as

O' Son of Prtha,those who take shelter in me even though they are of sinful origin,women,vaisyas and sudras can attain the Supreme destination.


Yonah can also mean origin...therefore Papa Yonah are those with sinful origin for example those who are in born in an atmosphere of sin...for example a son of a murderer.

So it is not as if Lord Krishna is saying women,vaisyas, sudras as Papa Yonah.

Papa Yonah is a separate category on its own here and does not mean women,vaisya and sudra.


The catch word here is the presence of the Vaisya caste in this verse.

Vaisyas were also considered twice born(Dwija) and initiated to study religion along with Brahmanas and Kshatriyas.

So when Vaisyas were already given Dwija status..why would they be called Papa Yonah here?

Doesn't make sense right??

So I would rather go with the understanding that Lord Krishna meant:


O' Son of Prtha,those who take shelter in me even though they are of sinful origin,women,vaisyas and sudras can attain the Supreme destination.

renuka said:

Dear Sangom ji,


The verse in Geeta goes as:





It translates as

O' Son of Prtha,those who take shelter in me even though they are of sinful origin,women,vaisyas and sudras can attain the Supreme destination.


Yonah can also mean origin...therefore Papa Yonah are those with sinful origin for example those who are in born in an atmosphere of sin...for example a son of a murderer.

So it is not as if Lord Krishna is saying women,vaisyas, sudras as Papa Yonah.

Papa Yonah is a separate category on its own here and does not mean women,vaisya and sudra.


The catch word here is the presence of the Vaisya caste in this verse.

Vaisyas were also considered twice born(Dwija) and initiated to study religion along with Brahmanas and Kshatriyas.

So when Vaisyas were already given Dwija status..why would they be called Papa Yonah here?

Doesn't make sense right??

So I would rather go with the understanding that Lord Krishna meant:


O' Son of Prtha,those who take shelter in me even though they are of sinful origin,women,vaisyas and sudras can attain the Supreme destination.

Click to expand...

Smt. Renuka,

Even if one says, "those who take shelter in me even though they are of sinful origin,women,vaisyas and sudras can attain the Supreme destination."
as you want to put it, does not improve the situation. It only shifts the adjective pāpayonayaḥ into another class of people similar to pāpayonayaḥ like women, vaiśyas and śūdras.

But Adishankara does not agree with your view. He says (possibly because during his days sanAtana dharma did not have an agenda of gender equality ) "पापा यॊनिः यॆषां ते पापयोनयः पापजन्मानः । के ते इति आह स्त्रियो वैश्यः तथा शुद्राः ते अपि यान्ति (pāpā yoniḥ yeṣāṃ te pāpayonayaḥ pāpajanmānaḥ | ke te iti āha striyo vaiśyaḥ tathā śudrāḥ te api yānti)". Madhusudana Saraswati also reportedly gives similar view. I find Madhvacharya and many others also of the view that women are included in the group of doubtfuls in most of the eleven commentaries in the book View DJVU Document

The underlying sense of this sloka is that it is not only the brAhmaNas and kshatriyas who are sticklers to their religious duties who will get liberation by worshipping me, but even the pāpayonayaḥ, viz., women, vaisyas and sudras - the "gone" cases (whose getting moksha is extremely doubtful) will get "parām gatim" by worshipping and exclusively depending on me (Krishna) alone.

Some of the commentaries clarify that Vaisyas become pāpayonayaḥ because they use the weighing balance (vaiśyāstulādhārayo bhārate khyātā), kṛṣimātraparā or engaged in agricultural pursuits only.

Once again, this is the predicament with the so called sanAtanadharma. The Bhagavadgita was written/composed at a time when woman was just as good as cattle and a possession of the male. Hence women were considered unfit for any of the religious activities as per the Poorva Mimamsa and hence pāpayonis. This term is understood only in the sense of base or sinful birth or origin. If you carefully study those eleven commentaries, you will possibly get a better idea.

As you know, I do not at all think that there was some Krishna, a cowherd and a king at the same time and that he spoke all of this irrelevant 700 verses in the middle of (one of the most ferocious) battle fields, that Krishna was the Supreme godhead itself and all that. To me this is just the handiwork of some sanskrit scholar (may be Iswara Krishna, the famous samkhya scholar, may not be) which was cleverly interpolated into the Mahabharata. So, it is the social norm of those days and women were considered unfit for parām gatim.

Unfortunately this does not suit the perceptions of the present times. Hence the least that we can do is to revise the Bhagavadgita, expunge all such inconvenient truths and have a new BG like the King James' version of the Bible.

It is surprising to see that most of us shy away from accepting the fact that strong caste based discrimination was there among the Hindu community as per the prevailing social practices of that time. Sri Ramanuja was one among the few brave Acharya Mahapurushas who broke the system by their various acts. Similarly Sant Dhyaneshvar translated Srimath Bhagavad Gita in Marathi to reach the common man. These greatmen set the pace for future reformists.

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

Brahmanyan said:

It is surprising to see that most of us shy away from accepting the fact that strong caste based discrimination was there among the Hindu community as per the prevailing social practices of that time. Sri Ramanuja was one among the few brave Acharya Mahapurushas who broke the system by their various acts. Similarly Sant Dhyaneshvar translated Srimath Bhagavad Gita in Marathi to reach the common man. These greatmen set the pace for future reformists.

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

Click to expand...

Dear Shri Brahmanyan,

The problem is that (as judged from my two years' experience in this Forum) today's tabras do not want to have the "caste-based discrimination" which you refer to, to be a truth; possibly this yearning arises because of today's tabras' dissatisfaction with the caste-based reservation system. Our members here have been vehement that today's brahmins should not be punished for whatever discrimination was probably practised in the past, that brahmins had been, ab initio, a very meek and powerless class (group) who had obviously been forced to write the Dharmasastras and other texts by the kshatriyas and vaisyas who had muscle- as well as political powers in those olden days, etc. All these deflective arguments will lose their sharpness once the tabras (brahmins) admit that there was caste-based discrimination right up to the time of our Constitution and even some time thereafter; it is even now practised with impunity in certain pockets, especially in North India.

Vaishnavites are specially in a catch-22 situation if they admit that Ramanuja welcomed a lot of NBs into his vaishnavite fold. Though there is a general understanding that one faction within vaishnavites comprises predominantly of such NB converts, today, all efforts are towards rewriting history and convincing the world about one unified vaishnavite group which became two schisms because of very deep philosophical differences and so on.

In short tabras as a whole seem to be trying to plug the hole in the vessel by making everything dark (இருட்டாக்கி ஓட்டையெ அடைக்கப் பாற்க்கிறது - iruṭṭākki oṭṭaiye aṭaikkap pāṟkkiṟatu).

It is at such a juncture that you are coming out with an explosive statement which indirectly puts down all Acharyas except Ramanuja and Jnaneswar. I do not know much about Ramanuja and his NB converts, but Jnaneswari in Marathi was also not for all and sundry and only those with good education could grasp the literary language of jnaneswari. It was sant Tuka Ram (a kunbi agricultural caste person) and disciple of Namdev, whose "abhangs" caught the imagination of the laity and is still popular among the Varkaris as also the general public. In this sense Jnandev is not a reformist.

sangom said:

... a sufficiently rich Sudra could have any vedic sacrifice got performed with his wealth through officiating brAhmaNa priests but the Sudra himself would not be allowed anywhere near the hearing distance of the mantras chanted in the yAgasAla.

Click to expand...

Do we have any examples of this?

sangom said:

As you know, I do not at all think that there was some Krishna, a cowherd and a king at the same time and that he spoke all of this irrelevant 700 verses in the middle of (one of the most ferocious) battle fields, that Krishna was the Supreme godhead itself and all that. To me this is just the handiwork of some sanskrit scholar (may be Iswara Krishna, the famous samkhya scholar, may not be) which was cleverly interpolated into the Mahabharata. So, it is the social norm of those days and women were considered unfit for parām gatim.

Click to expand...

The samkhya school, as you are aware sir, is of tantric origin. Early on, it did not accept Ishvara (God) as cause of the origin of universe and has much in common with the yoga school. But later, it came under (fell to?) the astika (theism) school. So, it is not surprising the Gita ended up portraying Krishna as the creator and supreme. But it is very doubtful if Ishvara Krishna (of Sankhya school) was responsible for it.

In Bhagavad Gita, chapter 1 (vishada yoga), chapter 2 (samkhya yoga), chapter 3 (karma yoga), chapter 4 (jnana yoga), chapter 5 (karma vairagya yoga) and chapter 6 (abhyasa yoga) deal predominantly with yogic concepts.

In chapter 7 (paramahansa vijnana yoga), things began to change. In this chapter, 'Krishna' speaks about the 'absolute reality', opulence of divinity, describes His illusory energy called mAyA in the material existence, and declares how difficult it is to surmount it.

From chapter 8 (akshara parabrahman 'yoga') things completely change. The text becomes theistic, and one is asked to remember the lord's (Krishna's) name on death. Next, chapter 9 (raja vidya guha 'yoga') explains how all material is created, maintained and annihilated by Krishna's energy, with all births and deaths happening under his supervision. Chapter 10 makes Krishna the cause of all causes. In Chapter 11, Krishna shows his Vishwaroopa to Arjuna. After this, bhakti (as a yoga) is emphasized in chapter 12.

In Chapter 13, Krishna explains how the immortal soul lives on while the body perishes. In Chapter 14, Guna theory is propounded. In chapter 15, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and 'Krishna' explains how God can be realized. In chapter 16, the daivasura sampad, qualities of divine and demonic (and thus righteous behavior and unrighteous behavior), are explained. In Chapter 17, three different types of faith are explained.

Finally in chapter 18, 'Krishna' sums up the conclusion of the previous chapters, and describes the attainment of salvation by the paths of karma from chapter 1 to 6; and with jnana yoga section which are chapters 13 to 18. 'Krishna' explains that while doing so one must offer without reservation everything to God (to Krishna).

So the text itself says chapters 1 to 6 are karma yoga (karma theory) whilst chapters 13 to 18 are 'jnana yoga'.

So what about Chapters 7 to 12 ? The ones which elevate Krishna as supreme God, holder of maya ('illusory' creation), creator of the universe, with a vishwaroopam, propounding bhakti as means to attain him.

Even if the samkhya school were theistic (or had become one by this time), what was the need to elevate Krishna in this text? If Ishwara Krishna (of Sankhya school) wrote those verses, wouldn't he be akin to a megalomaniac?

Additionally, if Ishvara-Krishna had written chapter 16 on qualities of daivas and asuras, wouldn't he have taken into consideration his guru Asuri was named like the latter? Wouldn't he have known the previous holder of mAyA (creation) Varuna, was an asura too before the rise of Prajapati?

It seems apparent Ishvara-Krishna was author of Chapters 1 to 6, which is sankhya proper. Since chapters 7 to 12 elevate Krishna as supreme creator God requiring bhakti for salvation, it seems highly probable they were interloped into the text during the bhakti period. The interpolation was most probably done by Adi Shankara, as some seem to claim; as he revolutionized the bhakti marga.

Hence, it is not correct to ascribe the phrase on pāpayonayaḥ to Krishna (son of Yashoda) of Mahabharat, or to Ishvara-Krishna (of Samkhya school). The verse could have only come from someone who wanted to bring the Gita under the dharmashastra context (of demeaning women and shudras). Plus wanted to hit more than two birds with one stone (ie, achieve a lot more with one set of interpolations) The interpolated chapters wanted to make bhakti marga popular and hence did not debar women and shudras from it. Through the bhakti marga, non-vedic gods, such as Krishna, got established as mainstream gods.

Previously, we already noted that brahmins could not compete with non-vedic streams and hence during bhakti period, adopted non-vedic personalities and philosophies into their mainstream.

Brahmanyan said:

It is surprising to see that most of us shy away from accepting the fact that strong caste based discrimination was there among the Hindu community as per the prevailing social practices of that time. Sri Ramanuja was one among the few brave Acharya Mahapurushas who broke the system by their various acts. Similarly Sant Dhyaneshvar translated Srimath Bhagavad Gita in Marathi to reach the common man. These greatmen set the pace for future reformists.

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

Click to expand...

hi sir,
this is correct.....when hinduism/vedic dharma iwas attacked by buddhist/jains....sri Adi shankaracharya born and protected

the vedic dharma/sanatan dharma....when too much vedic dharma prevailing conditions of so called orthodox brahmins.......

sri ramanujacharya born and removed the caste based discrinimation.....even guru nanak/guru govind singh in sikhism try

to reform the society.....its natural way of survival of humanity.....ATI SARVATRA VARJAYETH....too much of anything is bad....

palindrome said:

Do we have any examples of this?

Click to expand...

Palindrome,

I have read it in Mahabharata, most probably the part in which Yudhishtira learns from Bheeshma (Anusasana Parva) about king's duties and many other things. Bheeshma says that a Shudra can save or keep money only for the purpose of getting a vedic sacrifice done, etc. If a shudra is found to have hoarded money otherwise, the king (ruler) has to confiscate it and punish the offender. I shall try to get the reference but it may take time. May be you will find it quickly.

The samkhya school, as you are aware sir, is of tantric origin. Early on, it did not accept Ishvara (God) as cause of the origin of universe and has much in common with the yoga school. But later, it came under (fell to?) the astika (theism) school. So, it is not surprising the Gita ended up portraying Krishna as the creator and supreme. But it is very doubtful if Ishvara Krishna (of Sankhya school) was responsible for it.

It seems apparent Ishvara-Krishna was author of Chapters 1 to 6, which is sankhya proper. Since chapters 7 to 12 elevate Krishna as supreme creator God requiring bhakti for salvation, it seems highly probable that Chapters 7 to 12 were interloped into the text during the bhakti period. The interpolation was most probably done by Adi Shankara, as some seem to claim; as he revolutionized the bhakti marga.

Hence, it is not correct to ascribe the phrase on pāpayonayaḥ to Krishna (son of Yashoda) of Mahabharat, or to Ishvara-Krishna (of Samkhya school). The verse could have only come from someone who wanted to bring the Gita under the dharmashastra context (of demeaning women and shudras). Plus wanted to hit more than two birds with one stone (ie, achieve a lot more with one set of interpolations) The interpolated chapters wanted to make bhakti maga popular and hence did not debar women and shudras from it. Through the bhakti marga, non-vedic gods, got established as mainstream gods.

Click to expand...

I only mentioned in passing that probably Iswara krishna might have written BG. It was just a comment from the pov of laymen, not scholars. Your presumptions may or may not be true but I don't know whether scholars have been able to find linguistic, poetic etc., evidences to support the view that BG comprises three authors as stated by you. Adi Shankara would not have been foolish enough to supply chapters 7 to 12 of BG and then go and write a Bhashya on the whole thing. Also, the notion of "PrasthAnathrayee" was already well established and Shankara also had to prove, by means of Bhashyama that the prasthAnathrayee supports his advaita philosophy only.

To me, it is the composer of BG who used the term "pApayOnayaH" in accordance with the social norms prevailing then and the word has been put in Krishna's mouth. Nothing more.

sangom said:

Palindrome,

I have read it in Mahabharata, most probably the part in which Yudhishtira learns from Bheeshma (Anusasana Parva) about king's duties and many other things. Bheeshma says that a Shudra can save or keep money only for the purpose of getting a vedic sacrifice done, etc. If a shudra is found to have hoarded money otherwise, the king (ruler) has to confiscate it and punish the offender. I shall try to get the reference but it may take time. May be you will find it quickly.

Click to expand...

OK sir, i shall look up the anushasana parva.

I only mentioned in passing that probably Iswara krishna might have written BG. It was just a comment from the pov of laymen, not scholars. Your presumptions may or may not be true but I don't know whether scholars have been able to find linguistic, poetic etc., evidences to support the view that BG comprises three authors as stated by you. Adi Shankara would not have been foolish enough to supply chapters 7 to 12 of BG and then go and write a Bhashya on the whole thing. Also, the notion of "PrasthAnathrayee" was already well established and Shankara also had to prove, by means of Bhashyama that the prasthAnathrayee supports his advaita philosophy only.

Click to expand...

Two authors only sir. Ishwara Krishna presenting the sankhya view. And another author (probably Adi Shankara) presenting the bhakti view. I do not see why it should be foolish, or why there should be no connection between the bhasyam and the verses. Why would not someone who wrote the verse(s) also write a bhasyam on it.

To me, it is the composer of BG who used the [COLOR=#DA7911 !important]term[/COLOR] "pApayOnayaH" in accordance with the social norms prevailing then and the word has been put in Krishna's mouth. Nothing more.

Click to expand...

Therefore sir, imo, it is not correct to hold Krishna (son of Yashoda) responsible for such statements. Why would a cowherd prince whom women found charming, want to call women papayonah. I feel, it is sad for Krishna, to malign him as such.

palindrome said:

Do we have any examples of this?


The samkhya school, as you are aware sir, is of tantric origin. Early on, it did not accept Ishvara (God)
as cause of the origin of universe and has much in common with the yoga school.


But later, it came under (fell to?) the astika (theism) school. So, it is not surprising the Gita ended up
portraying Krishna as the creator and supreme. But it is very doubtful if Ishvara Krishna (of Sankhya school)
was responsible for it.


In Bhagavad Gita, chapter 1 (vishada yoga), chapter 2 (samkhya yoga), chapter 3 (karma yoga), chapter 4 (jnana yoga),
chapter 5 (karma vairagya yoga) and chapter 6 (abhyasa yoga) deal predominantly with yogic
concepts........

Click to expand...

Dear Palindrome,


Nice summary on BG chapters.


But, Iswara Krishna of Sankhya school is no way related to Vasudeva Krishna. Are you confused about their identities?


The central doctrine of Sankhya, summed up in the verse of Sankhya-kArika is this:

"The primordial cosmic matter is uncaused and from it evolve seven vikrits/evolutes such as 'mahat '
which serve as the causes of 16 other evolutes;purusa or the self is neither caused by any principle
nor does it serve as the cause of anything else."


They deny the existence of Isvara which is the central doctrine of Vedas. So, this school is called NirIswara-Sankhya.
Next, How can an insentient Prakriti, evolve into the various forms/evolutes without any aid of an intelligent being??
They, compare the evolution of Prakriti, to a blind person with the help of a lame person called Jiva/purusa. What a
blind and lame world we are in, no different from the illusory world of Advaita!!


Verse 2.61, 'One who restrains his senses and fixes his consciousness upon Me, is known as a man of steady intelligence.'
This is purely vedic philosophy.


One, that Jiva/Self has to restrain the senses (born of prakriti/matter). Then by contemplating on
that Supreme Person, Narayana (Me), the sins/senses are burnt and steady firm knowledge is established.


Verse 3.19 "Therefore, without being attached to the fruits of activities (dharma), one should act as a matter of duty;
for by working without attachment, one attains the Supreme."


Verse 3.20 "As the ignorant perform their duties
with attachment to results, similarly the learned may also act, but without attachment, for the sake of leading
people on the right path."


Verse 6.29-32 'He whose mind is fixed in Yoga, is one who sees Me in every self and sees every self in Me'.
The Supreme Person alone is the AntaryAmi and the controller of All. Plus, the next set of verses
speaks about the power of mind(prakriti) and hence only fixing the mind on Him will help in the Yoga, SUCH REASONING
is the REAL meaning of SANKHYA, and has nothing to do with the sankya philosophy, who adopted that 'catchy sanskrit
vocab' for their philosophy!


Contrary to what you assumed, chapter 2, 3 also talk about the responsible actions of the Jiva/Self and
chapter 6 (Sankhya Yoga) establishes the sruti's message that Supreme Person/Lord is the cause of this
creation and liberation.


To ponder more...
According to Sankhya, the jiva/purusa is nirvikara and hence jiva is neither a doer or enjoyer,
only prakriti[body/mind] takes the blame. Ironically, Sankhya claims that prakriti helps in the liberation of prakriti. If Jiva is a clean chit, why even take birth and get associated with the dirty prakriti?? Without Iswara, where will jiva land after emancipation/liberation, where is the world free of dirty prakriti??


I would recommend an excellent book of a scholar SMS Chari, "Indian Philosophical Systems", a critical review based on Vedanta Desika's "Paramata Bhanga". I would recommend this excellently researched book, for anyone interested in Indian Philosophical systems and those wanting to know the Truth. Any of SMS Chari's book on Philosophy would be a real eye-opener.

Govinda said:

Dear Palindrome,


Nice summary on BG chapters.


But, Iswara Krishna of Sankhya school is no way related to Vasudeva Krishna. Are you confused about their identities?


The central doctrine of Sankhya, summed up in the verse of Sankhya-kArika is this:

"The primordial cosmic matter is uncaused and from it evolve seven vikrits/evolutes such as 'mahat '
which serve as the causes of 16 other evolutes;purusa or the self is neither caused by any principle
nor does it serve as the cause of anything else."


They deny the existence of Isvara which is the central doctrine of Vedas. So, this school is called NirIswara-Sankhya.
Next, How can an insentient Prakriti, evolve into the various forms/evolutes without any aid of an intelligent being??
They, compare the evolution of Prakriti, to a blind person with the help of a lame person called Jiva/purusa. What a
blind and lame world we are in, no different from the illusory world of Advaita!!


Verse 2.61, 'One who restrains his senses and fixes his consciousness upon Me, is known as a man of steady intelligence.'
This is purely vedic philosophy.


One, that Jiva/Self has to restrain the senses (born of prakriti/matter). Then by contemplating on
that Supreme Person, Narayana (Me), the sins/senses are burnt and steady firm knowledge is established.


Verse 3.19 "Therefore, without being attached to the fruits of activities (dharma), one should act as a matter of duty;
for by working without attachment, one attains the Supreme."


Verse 3.20 "As the ignorant perform their duties
with attachment to results, similarly the learned may also act, but without attachment, for the sake of leading
people on the right path."


Verse 6.29-32 'He whose mind is fixed in Yoga, is one who sees Me in every self and sees every self in Me'.
The Supreme Person alone is the AntaryAmi and the controller of All. Plus, the next set of verses
speaks about the power of mind(prakriti) and hence only fixing the mind on Him will help in the Yoga, SUCH REASONING
is the REAL meaning of SANKHYA, and has nothing to do with the sankya philosophy, who adopted that 'catchy sanskrit
vocab' for their philosophy!


Contrary to what you assumed, chapter 2, 3 also talk about the responsible actions of the Jiva/Self and
chapter 6 (Sankhya Yoga) establishes the sruti's message that Supreme Person/Lord is the cause of this
creation and liberation.


To ponder more...
According to Sankhya, the jiva/purusa is nirvikara and hence jiva is neither a doer or enjoyer,
only prakriti[body/mind] takes the blame. Ironically, Sankhya claims that prakriti helps in the liberation of prakriti. If Jiva is a clean chit, why even take birth and get associated with the dirty prakriti?? Without Iswara, where will jiva land after emancipation/liberation, where is the world free of dirty prakriti??


I would recommend an excellent book of a scholar SMS Chari, "Indian Philosophical Systems", a critical review based on Vedanta Desika's "Paramata Bhanga". I would recommend this excellently researched book, for anyone interested in Indian Philosophical systems and those wanting to know the Truth. Any of SMS Chari's book on Philosophy would be a real eye-opener.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the note. There is no confusion about identities. Ishvara-Krishna of Sankhya school was the primary author of Bhagavad Gita. Not Krishna (son of Yashoda) of Mahabharat. That point is clear. However, there is a set of interpolated verses into the Bhagavad Gita -- who that author was, is a point of contention. It has a lot to do with social outcomes of its time. Thank you for the suggestion on 'What the REAL meaning of Sankhya is'. There are historians who have dealt with the Sankhya school; and i prefer reading them up. Thanks for the book suggestion, will try to look up when possible.