Ramanuja and Non Brahmins

[Govinda]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

ADAP-PAAVI...We can't wake up those who act like sleeping!

 

[biswa]

The women-vaishya-shudra verse of BG has been debated endlessly. Has anybody considered that the BG may have been written by humans (with possible divine inspiration)? The same goes for the Koran, 10 commandments etc. Why do we think these are literally the words spoken by God?

 

[palindrome]

ADAP-PAAVI...We can't wake up those who act like sleeping!

There is a big difference between explorers and followers. Its better to leave it at that.

 

[palindrome]

The women-vaishya-shudra verse of BG has been debated endlessly. Has anybody considered that the BG may have been written by humans (with possible divine inspiration)? The same goes for the Koran, 10 commandments etc. Why do we think these are literally the words spoken by God?

I do not know if a creator God exists. However, inspiration must be the work of God (coz i don't understand the source of that overwhelming feeling called inspiration either). Words of man. Inspired by the unknown.

 

[renuka]

Sometimes not everything is evidence based or factual.

Bhava is also important.

Bhagavad Geeta is a timeless masterpiece where each shloka has the unique capability to orientate to time, place and person.

I know many might not agree with me...but I always believe that none of us can really read the Geeta out of our free will to understand it.

The Geeta is like a flower that unfolds itself when It feels the time is right to bloom for the reader.

Such a unique fragrance can only come from God.

 

[palindrome]

Sometimes not everything is evidence based or factual.

Bhava is also important.

Bhagavad Geeta is a timeless masterpiece where each shloka has the unique capability to orientate to time, place and person.

I know many might not agree with me...but I always believe that none of us can really read the Geeta out of our free will to understand it.

The Geeta is like a flower that unfolds itself when It feels the time is right to bloom for the reader.

Such a unique fragrance can only come from God.

So true Renu. Epistemology is but one way of presenting / examining any knowledge hub.

All the same, all compositions, are of man. Sometimes inspired men do not compose, they just live it. And sometimes, it is the sheer ability to compose; with little role for inspiration. Its like the difference between method acting and spontaneous acting.

A follower, a believer, would examine things in a different way, sometimes with a priori of faith. An explorer would examine things in a different way, sometimes without a faith priori. Each one has their place. Each presents their view.

 

[renuka]

A follower, a believer, would examine things in a different way, sometimes with a priori of faith. An explorer would examine things in a different way, sometimes without a faith priori. Each one has their place. Each presents their view.

Dear Palindrome,

Agreed..each will have their own way and views as you have rightly said.

But we must not forget that a person can be a follower,believer and an explorer all in one...a Jignaasu.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

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.

The caste-based reservation/discrimination with the brahmins at receiving end that is practiced today is a fact. Whether the brahmins express their dissatisfaction or not, this fact does not change. The brahmins are aware of this fact. Sangom is writing as if this discriminatory system is being practiced after giving due considerations to all sections of the society - i.e. including the discriminated sections. The discrimination today is being thrust upon their throat in this secular era in a way not dissimilar to how it was thrust upon during the "feudal" society days.

Past is discussed and harped upon in most cases, mainly to justify the present and not to arrive at the truth.

Our members here have been vehement that today's brahmins should not be punished for whatever discrimination was probably practised in the past

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..

The argument that one injustice cannot recompense another, can stand on its own. Why should this argument lose its sharpness if it is admitted that caste-based discrimination was practiced by the hindu society?

Vaishnavites are specially in a catch-22 situation if they admit that Ramanuja welcomed a lot of NBs into his vaishnavite fold.

It is not clear what catch-22 situation Sangom is referring to. All these revolutions that happened during this bakthi period point to one thing. As opposed to the argument that religion being the cause of the feudal society, it appears that only religion has tried to reform the feudal society.

Vehement...Deflective....trying to plug the hole in the vessel by making everything dark

At least you did not use the word "bitching". That is appreciated!

 

[palindrome]

Dear Palindrome,

Agreed..each will have their own way and views as you have rightly said.

But we must not forget that a person can be a follower,believer and an explorer all in one...a Jignaasu.

That is an ideal which everyone can aim or hope to be.

 

[sangom]

OK sir, i shall look up the anushasana parva.

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.

One point is that Adishankara does not cite many references from BG in his major bhashyams. So, it would appear that he did not rely much on BG as an authoritative text. Secondly, Shankara's advaita does not talk about bhakti as a means of attaining salvation; Shankara emphasizes nididhyAsana as the only way to attain brahmajnana. Scholars who have done much research on Shankara's works are of the view that all the slokas and other verses like soundarya lahari etc., are works of people who adorned the peeThas and hence could call themselves Shankara Bhagavatpada or some such thing and all these, including "Bhajagovindam" have come to be taken as AdiShankara's compositions, unfortunately, compromising both the integrity of Shankara as also his advaita. When Shankara says clearly that both sAmkhya and therefore Yoga are not means to attain knowledge of the brahman, it will be gross injustice to Shankara to say that he promoted bhakti marga.

It is more probable that scholars who lived subsequent to Shankara created such an impression in the minds of the people since advaita, if practised well, would have taken the people nearer to Buddhistic types.

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.

For all the scholarship that you exhibit on one side, you seem to think, rather in a sentimental way, that Krishna should be spared of calling women as of sinful birth. I find this very ludicrous. The BG is clear that Krishna said so. Probably he found such pApayOnayaH very exciting just as teenagers like smoking, drugs, etc., simply because elders prohibit such things. Any way, you can either rewrite BG or accept what is apparently said by Krishna himself; as a third alternative we may blame sanjaya for twisting whatever he heard!! But it makes little difference to me because I view Krishna just merely as a character in an epic poem, not as God.

 

[sarang]

The temple is in thirukkoshtiyur, near sivaganga. (not sriperumpudur, kanchipuram).

There are many books on the life of Ramanujacharya, Guruparampara Prabhavam by Pinpalaeya Jeer, Yatindra Vaivabham by Andrapurna, Ramanuja Champu ( systematic biography with all historical incidents), Ramanuja Divya Charitram, Divyasuri Charitram, Koil Ozhuhi (history log of srirangam temple), Yatiraja Sabtati, Yatiraja Vimsati.

In recent times, 'The Life of Ramanujachara' by Alkondavilli Govindacharya and published in 1930s is held in high respect and considered as authentic. Extract below is from this book.

“Ramanuja reverently received the teachings, and considered himself now as regenerated and saved. Nut he could not contain the truth within him, though imparted under pledge of secrecy.”
The next day, he entered into the big and elevated hall (note 1) of Terk-Kazhavan or the Lord Nrisimha of Tirukkoshtiyur, invited all to assemble there, and his full heart flowed to them in the revealing of the precious truths relating to Spirit, which he had learnt from Goshti-Purna, under vow of secrecy”
Note 1: This is called gopuram or pinnacle, as sung by Anna-v-aappangara in his Ramanuja-atimanusha-stava.

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.

 

[sangom]

ADAP-PAAVI...We can't wake up those who act like sleeping!

Dear Shri Govinda,

I can well judge your disappointment, sir. But don't you realize that you are not waking up in a geneal way, but like the Keralite viewing "vishukkaNi", you want the sleeping people to wake up to a pre-arranged scene. Since you seem to put a lot of importance to Isvara, God, etc., judging from your posts so far, why is it difficult for you to understand that the same god has made all kinds of people and makes them see the world differently and think also differently. That is why this world is a mAyA according to advaita.

Why do you insist that others should also hold the same views as you do, in these matters?

 

[sangom]

The women-vaishya-shudra verse of BG has been debated endlessly. Has anybody considered that the BG may have been written by humans (with possible divine inspiration)? The same goes for the Koran, 10 commandments etc. Why do we think these are literally the words spoken by God?

That is the tragedy, Shri Biswa. Some sanskrit scholars (most probably brahmins, imo) wrote all those scritpures, but they were clever enough to put all those things as if spoken by some revered person. In the case of BG, it is difficult for most people to consider the ground reality viz., that it is a book which says "Krishna said this and this". We have absolutely no proof that Krishna actually existed, Mahabharata war really happened, etc., etc., but people have been indoctrinated to so believe and they get enraged if their folly is pointed out. That is religious zealotry.

 

[sarang]

How many make almost all! Like MK, visits and affidavits happened in the dream of sarvagnani!

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?

 

[palindrome]

One point is that Adishankara does not cite many references from BG in his major bhashyams. So, it would appear that he did not rely much on BG as an authoritative text. Secondly, Shankara's advaita does not talk about bhakti as a means of attaining salvation; Shankara emphasizes nididhyAsana as the only way to attain brahmajnana. Scholars who have done much research on Shankara's works are of the view that all the slokas and other verses like soundarya lahari etc., are works of people who adorned the peeThas and hence could call themselves Shankara Bhagavatpada or some such thing and all these, including "Bhajagovindam" have come to be taken as AdiShankara's compositions, unfortunately, compromising both the integrity of Shankara as also his advaita. When Shankara says clearly that both sAmkhya and therefore Yoga are not means to attain knowledge of the brahman, it will be gross injustice to Shankara to say that he promoted bhakti marga.

Previously had gone thru some papers describing Adi Shankara's role in starting the bhakti movement, and integrating it with Advaita (since Shankara's Advaita accepts a creator). Unfortunately, i do not have the papers with me. However, i am able to certainly mention 3 publications which elaborate on the said issue:
1) Sadhana Panchakam by Adi Shankaracharya
2) Sankara and Shanmata: souvenir published in connection with the Conference on Sankara and Shanmata held in Madras from June 1-June 9, 1969
3) The Voice of Śaṅkara: Śaṅkara-bhāratī, Volume 3

For all the scholarship that you exhibit on one side,

Please sir, am neither an exhibit nor is there scholarship in these fingers. There are Ishvara-Krishna (sankhya school) type of composers to this day. One may find better meaning there, such as this: Rabbi Shergill - Bulla Ki Jaana Maen Kaun - YouTube

you seem to think, rather in a sentimental way, that Krishna should be spared of calling women as of sinful birth. I find this very ludicrous. The BG is clear that Krishna said so. Probably he found such pApayOnayaH very exciting just as teenagers like smoking, drugs, etc., simply because elders prohibit such things. Any way, you can either rewrite BG or accept what is apparently said by Krishna himself; as a third alternative we may blame sanjaya for twisting whatever he heard!! But it makes little difference to me because I view Krishna just merely as a character in an epic poem, not as God.

But Krishna of Mahabharat did not compose the BG. The point was not about God, rewriting BG, drugs, smoking, etc. The point is plain and simple -- how can something one did not say be attributed to him.

 

[sangom]

I do not know if a creator God exists. However, inspiration must be the work of God (coz i don't understand the source of that overwhelming feeling called inspiration either). Words of man. Inspired by the unknown.

The unknown need not necessarily be god; it can be latent talents in the subconscious. There have been many poets like Kalidasa, Bhavabhuti, Bilhana and so on, but we do not even read their poetic works with as much dedication as with BG. To me this difference arose because the hindu religion aggressively sold BG during the last 5 or 6 decades specially; this is very similar to the aggressive sales pitch mounted for Sabarimala Ayyappan some 50 or so years ago by means of a "Rathayatra" (in a motor van) from Kanyakumari to Kashmir.

The belief in BG is no better than the belief in any other aggressively advertised goods.

 

[sangom]

Sometimes not everything is evidence based or factual.

Bhava is also important.

Bhagavad Geeta is a timeless masterpiece where each shloka has the unique capability to orientate to time, place and person.

I know many might not agree with me...but I always believe that none of us can really read the Geeta out of our free will to understand it.

The Geeta is like a flower that unfolds itself when It feels the time is right to bloom for the reader.

Such a unique fragrance can only come from God.

Then we should also accept, with all humility, that Krishna views women as of "sinful birth".

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji Sir,

You said above in your posting:

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.

I totally disagree with your conclusion here.

I am the first one to say that casteism is the bane of our religion. Not because of the reason you claim. But, because the structure of our religion, could not adjust to the changing civilization very easily, that brought equality and job discrimination to us.

In my opinion, Dharma Sastras only reflected the mores and edicts of yester year. Just the fact that they were written down and followed shows that they reflected the general social/cultural norms of the times they were written. If odious edicts are there, and I fully agree there are, it was because during those times those were seen as the norm.

Humanism did not exist then. People lived in Hamlets. The life was structured around castes. I am sure there were folks in all castes who wished to be a member of some other caste - I wonder what those children of then Brahmins who had the intellect akin to mine and who could not master the Vedas or the language did? I am sure there were others born in to other castes who had other aptitudes than what their castes dictated were in the same position. This was a closed system to such expressions of individual talents. And our society was not alone in this. Please read, if you have not already, a ground breaking fiction by one Chaim Potok named 'My name is Asher Lev', which is based on real experiences of the author, how such societal restrictions affect an individual (this is about the orthodox Jewish society).

The culture and the mores of a culture are macro drivers. So called 'Brahminism' came about because of the structure of Hinduism - which was sacerdotal- and not because of the purposefully evil mindedness of a majority of one class - in this instance, the 'Brahmins'. In a way, those times and culture were the reasons for those practices that we today view as odious and discriminatory. Remember, the human society all over at one time practiced cannibalism.

Yes, i agree that the real 'discrimination' started when Brahmins stepped out of their traditional role. This really started with the British regime. The untouchables is a problem, but then that practice was during those times viewed as a 'legal' action, just like how England unloaded her outcasts in to Australia and even to India. Combine this with the idea that some professions are 'dirty' - presto, the 'untouchables' in our religion grew big.

But as you correctly said, India, as a free nation does not approve of casteism anymore.

I for one object to the quota system vehemently. Not because I think that the disadvantaged should not be helped. But because of clear evidence such a system is not helping the disadvantaged and it again discriminates against some castes - which goes against the notion of a true secular and equal society. There are other ways to pull up the disadvantaged.

Regards,
KRS

 

[renuka]

Then we should also accept, with all humility, that Krishna views women as of "sinful birth".

Dear Sangom ji,

The Grammar in that stanza in BG does not reveal that women are considered sinful birth.

I think I explained in my earlier post.

If you see that women are always one the first devotees of an Avatar.

Sabhari for Lord Rama and the Gopikas for Lord Krishna.

Men somehow are "tube lights" they take sometime to get to know an Avatar!LOL(just kidding)

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom ji,

The Grammar in that stanza in BG does not reveal that women are considered sinful birth.

I think I explained in my earlier post.

If you see that women are always one the first devotees of an Avatar.

Sabhari for Lord Rama and the Gopikas for Lord Krishna.

Men somehow are "tube lights" they take sometime to get to know an Avatar!LOL(just kidding)

Smt. Renuka,

I think I cannot be a better authority than Adishankara whose commentary is given in post #17. Even if for argument's sake it is taken that the word "pApayOnayaH" is not qualifying the subsequent striyAH, vaisyaH, sUdraH, it will only mean that the pApayOnayaH and the women, vaisyas and sudras all rank in the same category. If this is some consolation for you, then let it be. But the fact remains for all to see that the sanAtanadharma considered women as inferior and unfit even to hear vedas being recited (just as the sudras were forbidden) and among the orthodox Namboodiris this rule is even now followed. Among the tabras also womenfolk were not to learn any vedic mantras, sooktas or any mantra with the beejAksharas (this according to the rules of Tantra); they would only learn the slokas and some two-line prayers.

All this has changed now because we are now following not the sanAtanadharma but the adhunAdhuna dharma!!

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji Sir,

You said above in your posting:


I totally disagree with your conclusion here.

I am the first one to say that casteism is the bane of our religion. Not because of the reason you claim. But, because the structure of our religion, could not adjust to the changing civilization very easily, that brought equality and job discrimination to us.

In my opinion, Dharma Sastras only reflected the mores and edicts of yester year. Just the fact that they were written down and followed shows that they reflected the general social/cultural norms of the times they were written. If odious edicts are there, and I fully agree there are, it was because during those times those were seen as the norm.

Humanism did not exist then. People lived in Hamlets. The life was structured around castes. I am sure there were folks in all castes who wished to be a member of some other caste - I wonder what those children of then Brahmins who had the intellect akin to mine and who could not master the Vedas or the language did? I am sure there were others born in to other castes who had other aptitudes than what their castes dictated were in the same position. This was a closed system to such expressions of individual talents. And our society was not alone in this. Please read, if you have not already, a ground breaking fiction by one Chaim Potok named 'My name is Asher Lev', which is based on real experiences of the author, how such societal restrictions affect an individual (this is about the orthodox Jewish society).

The culture and the mores of a culture are macro drivers. So called 'Brahminism' came about because of the structure of Hinduism - which was sacerdotal- and not because of the purposefully evil mindedness of a majority of one class - in this instance, the 'Brahmins'. In a way, those times and culture were the reasons for those practices that we today view as odious and discriminatory. Remember, the human society all over at one time practiced cannibalism.

Yes, i agree that the real 'discrimination' started when Brahmins stepped out of their traditional role. This really started with the British regime. The untouchables is a problem, but then that practice was during those times viewed as a 'legal' action, just like how England unloaded her outcasts in to Australia and even to India. Combine this with the idea that some professions are 'dirty' - presto, the 'untouchables' in our religion grew big.

But as you correctly said, India, as a free nation does not approve of casteism anymore.

I for one object to the quota system vehemently. Not because I think that the disadvantaged should not be helped. But because of clear evidence such a system is not helping the disadvantaged and it again discriminates against some castes - which goes against the notion of a true secular and equal society. There are other ways to pull up the disadvantaged.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS,


Our differing views on the reservation system has been discussed some two years ago and we then practically agreed to continue our disagreement, if I remember right. I for one, believe in the inevitability of the Law of Karma - as some of our members have come to express in the other thread about Angelina Jolie - and so, in my view, the reservations is the result of the past karmas based on the very same caste discrimination which possibly went on for millennia. It is like the same stone which is thrown up coming down! While one may score a debating point by pointing out that this reservation goes against a secular and equal society, etc., the question is whoever said we are having (or even aiming to achieve) "a true secular and equal society"? Secular - yes, but only ‘sovereign socialist secular democratic republic’ as per the Preamble to our Constitution — no one has claimed "true", kindly note. The type and extent of each of these (socialism, secularism, democratic nature, etc.) will be as defined by the rest of the Constitution.

I don't know in what exact sense you are using the word "humanism" since it is a vague term and has many connotations. I believe that even when people lived in hamlets in ancient India, humanism was there but like many human societies of those days all men were not considered as equal and having a right to equality before civil or divine dispensation of justice.

It is also not correct to say that "So called 'Brahminism' came about because of the structure of Hinduism - which was sacerdotal-"

First of all there was no "hinduism" then; what existed was a society which scrupulously learnt the three vedas and engaged in the many vedic sacrifices as a means to attain a desirable after-life. This society considered the entire population other than its three classes (brahmana, kshatriya and vaisya) as some kind of lowly or sinful births, uncivilized or anArya, etc. But when you say that brahminism came about because the society was sacerdotal, I think the idea that "priests can act as mediators between human beings and God/s" was not very well-established in the Rigvedic hymns; even in the yajurveda this sacerdotalism is not very clear. It is only after the renaissance under the Gupta empire that this kind of uplift of the priestly class seems to have gained currency. As time passed and elements of the Bhakti movement from the south, of the tantras and agamas and so on, got inter-mixed with the vedic way of life we had the full-blown brahminism. But such a construct may not be in consonance with the arguments very often raised in this forum to the effect that brahmins had ever been a meek and poor class living out of the largesses of the other two higher castes who, by means of their political and muscle powers, made these meek brahmins compose all those pro-brahmin and pro-dwija rules and all strictures against the sudras.


This was the problem which I wanted to bring to the notice of Shri Brahmanyan in post #19.

Regarding your problem, "I wonder what those children of then Brahmins who had the intellect akin to mine and who could not master the Vedas or the language did?", the answer is here:

"One who is born of a brāhmaṇa father but does not act as a brāhmaṇa is called, in Vedic language, a brahma-bandhu, and is calculated to be on the level of śūdras and women. Thus in the Bhāgavatam we find that Mahābhārata was specifically compiled by Vyāsadeva for strī-śūdra-brahma-bandhu. Strī means women, śūdra means the lower class of civilized human society, and brahma-bandhu means persons who are born in the families of brāhmaṇas but do not follow the rules and regulations carefully. All of these three classes are called less intelligent; they have no access to the study of the Vedas, which are specifically meant for persons who have acquired the brahminical qualifications. This restriction is based not upon any sectarian distinction but upon qualification. The Vedic literatures cannot be understood unless one has developed the brahminical qualifications."
(Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 4 Chapter 1 Verse 3)

 

[Govinda]

The unknown need not necessarily be god; it can be latent talents in the subconscious. There have been many poets like Kalidasa, Bhavabhuti, Bilhana and so on, but we do not even read their poetic works with as much dedication as with BG. .

Sangom Sir,

you make inappropriate comparisons, just for the sake of arguing or validating your stance.

The poets kalidas, etc. are just poets involved in some literary skils.. They may be better off than the others , simply becos they focussed on Raghu Vamsam and morals/ethics of our dharma. But they also authored sandesams, that talks of some love plots. .Why would you compare puliyam-pazham to nectarines of philosophical aptitude ?

Plus, in other posts, you have mentioned that post-gupta, our hinduism completely changed their outlook and preistly class gained superiority. BG/Mahabharata was 4000 yeras pre-gupta, and how did BG got promoted ?

The unknown need not necessarily be god;

Plus, those poets are devotees of Sri Rama and Raghu Kula TilakAs, how would it convince you if we adopt them as our holy texts?

 

[Govinda]

Dear Shri Govinda, I can well judge your disappointment, sir. But don't you realize that you are not waking up in a geneal way, but like the Keralite viewing "vishukkaNi", you want the sleeping people to wake up to a pre-arranged scene. Since you seem to put a lot of importance to Isvara, God, etc., judging from your posts so far, why is it difficult for you to understand that the same god has made all kinds of people and makes them see the world differently and think also differently. That is why this world is a mAyA according to advaita.

Why do you insist that others should also hold the same views as you do, in these matters?

I cited many examples/verses from BG in post#24 to invalidate the conclusions of Palindrome.

Plus, I also explained the central theme of Sankhya and how it condradicts the philosophy/message of BG.

Looks like, people dont even read the logical viewpoints and debate them, instead promote their opinions. So, what else would I conclude? other than some guys are pretending to sleep!

P.S:

The central theme of the vedic philosophy (srutis and smritis) is Iswara/Brahman/Lord Narayana. All yogas (karma, jnana, bhakti, surrender) and other accessories - upasana, dhyana, niddhiidaasana etc. all are focussed upon dedicating to that Supreme Person and meditating on the Svarupa/Svabhava of that Person.

All yogas or practices that donot go with that Vedic Theme are just a-yoga (அயோகி in tamil) and a-krama (not rightly intended/ordianed-அகிரமம் ), and all such siddhAntas are called a-nyaya (அநியாயம் ).

 

[Govinda]

Regarding your problem, "I wonder what those children of then Brahmins who had the intellect akin to mine and who could not master the Vedas or the language did?", the answer is here:

"One who is born of a brāhmaṇa father but does not act as a brāhmaṇa is called, in Vedic language, a brahma-bandhu, and is calculated to be on the level of śūdras and women. Thus in the Bhāgavatam we find that Mahābhārata was specifically compiled by Vyāsadeva for strī-śūdra-brahma-bandhu. Strī means women, śūdra means the lower class of civilized human society, and brahma-bandhu means persons who are born in the families of brāhmaṇas but do not follow the rules and regulations carefully. All of these three classes are called less intelligent; they have no access to the study of the Vedas, which are specifically meant for persons who have acquired the brahminical qualifications. This restriction is based not upon any sectarian distinction but upon qualification. The Vedic literatures cannot be understood unless one has developed the brahminical qualifications."
(Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 4 Chapter 1 Verse 3)

Sangom Ji,

I appreciate your deep analysis and memory. But, you fail to see the context.

I.

Right knowledge arises from right practices. From such knowledge and practices (actions), one develops proper intellect, hence would lose ego and become humble. Such Individual are called Pure.

Just by reading too many books like me, or getting a phD and claiming intellect does not make one self pure! "The Vedic literatures cannot be understood unless one has developed the brahminical qualifications". Also, by simply parroting the vedic practices, without intending to pay attention, correct and change oneself will equally disqualify that person to understand Vedas/Brahman. [Srutis and BG say the same, and know that there are TWO sides of a coin].

In the Mahabharata, Stris like Kunti, Draupadi and Gandhari like women though were able, pativratas, were selfish, proud, arrogant. Ashwattama/Drona didnt behave like Brahmans. When Brahmans and kshatriyas are supposed to be self-less (not Advaita kind!), doing duties for the benefit of mankind/society, those kshatriyas were more inclined in family feud. Sudras, who dis-owned the dharmic practices on their own. These are the extreme cases, that Vyasa was talking about.

II.

In the chapter of Sankhya Yoga, Krishna talks about sama-darshana , seeing the Supreme Self in all. Then, how can He advise us to act any differently?

You may read the verses towards the end of this chapter, Mind is fickle [cancalam hi mana:], though mind reigns supreme and we praise someone knowledgeable , we may also degrade the same person for lacking good qualities. Like Indra is a deva, but still has 1000 timira eyes (defective, arrogant திமிர்). So, controlling the mind is a difficult task, only by practice you can bring it to your control.

We do things only that gives results. Unless we abandon attachments to results, we cannot become realized. So, devoting to that Supreme Person, we slowly abandon results.

Yogins cleansed their karma/mind through many births. So, the pure-brahmanas of today would have been murderer or cannibal or robber (pApa-yOni), or a sudra or Drona in earlier births, so they would have taken refuge in Krishna and progressed to a Yogin now.

He, Krishna, Himself clearly said, the power of prakriti/Nature (hence the senses, mind) is powerful, so we should accept the reality of our nature and work to progress further.
"
When Krishna says this "By taking refuge in Me, even men of evil birth,...", He promises "the supreme state".

He cites the pure yogins as example, "Then how much more the Brahmanas who are pure are My devotees. Hvaing obtained this transient joyless world, worship Me".

Brahmins may act like shudAs [one who dont accept vedic authority], shudras may become pious and accept vedas as is. People, things change, but the nature of reality and natural laws dont change. So, it is shAstrAs responsibility to make us know the reality of one's (and species') nature and existence, so they can accept, learn and progress further. The same shAstrAs also state that when tehre is no one offer/do naivedhyam to the gods (meaning there is no one wanting to progress), the dissolution takes place!

People may not accept their own nature or reality, but Reality doesnot care!

 

[renuka]

Smt. Renuka,

I think I cannot be a better authority than Adishankara whose commentary is given in post #17. Even if for argument's sake it is taken that the word "pApayOnayaH" is not qualifying the subsequent striyAH, vaisyaH, sUdraH, it will only mean that the pApayOnayaH and the women, vaisyas and sudras all rank in the same category. If this is some consolation for you, then let it be. But the fact remains for all to see that the sanAtanadharma considered women as inferior and unfit even to hear vedas being recited (just as the sudras were forbidden) and among the orthodox Namboodiris this rule is even now followed. Among the tabras also womenfolk were not to learn any vedic mantras, sooktas or any mantra with the beejAksharas (this according to the rules of Tantra); they would only learn the slokas and some two-line prayers.

All this has changed now because we are now following not the sanAtanadharma but the adhunAdhuna dharma!!

Dear Sangom ji,

Yesterday night I was reading 2 interpretations of the Shloka.

Paramhansa Yogananda's commentary is that the list is Papah Yonah,Stri,Vaisya and Sudra and not that Papah Yonah are Stri,Vaisya and Sudra.

He said that this stanza is not to cast a slur on any of these categories but to just to emphasize that apparent social inequality does not bar anyone from attaining the Supreme State.


Swami Chinmayananda has given a different version.

For him he says that Papah Yonah are Stri,Vaisya and Sudra but he has given his commentary as :

Papah Yonah means "demerit status" which might hinder a person's spiritual journey.

So he said that Stri here does not mean women but the feminine qualities of emotions and attachment.

He said Vaisya here does not denote a caste but denote the calculative minded who are always looking for fruits of action.

Sudra also does not mean a caste but denotes slothful and inertia.

So he said that no matter what..even all these types can still attain the Supreme State.

But however I do not see full logic in Swami Chinmayananda's explanation cos if he is going by Gunas..that is Stri =emotions/attachement, Vaisya=calculativeness, Sudra =inertia...then stanza should have also had the word Kshatriya cos Kshatriya =Rajas/Passion.

So Swami Chinmayananda's commentary might not that be that accurate.

I agree with Paramahansa Yogananda's explanation cos he was talking about social inequality..that makes sense cos both Brahmana and Kshatriya were not included in that stanza cos in ancient days both Brahmana and Kshatriyas were literally "ruling" the society.

As I said in my earlier post that Vaisya is also twice born and initiated to study religion etc..so technically how can a Vaishya be a Papah Yonah if he is a twice born??

So to me I feel I rather go by the explanation of Paramhansa Yogananda and also from my own understanding too..cos Krishna Paramatma would have only said words that were beneficial for the world.

Krishnam Vande Jagat Gurum.