12-22-2005, 05:32 AM
sarangadhara ji,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if Sankara held the varna/jati by birth , how does it apply to modern age and to my original concern , how will the footsoldiers be convinced , leave alone them , for people the lower jatis how will they even come out of the self confidence , faith in hinduism tangle .
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to tradition Shankara changed his views late in his short life. This is of course if you believe Shankara wrote Maneesha Panchakam. Moreover Vedantic authors have repeatedly warned us against fundamentalist reading of Hindu scripture.
According to Yoga Vasishta Ramayan (II-18):
<b>Though human in origin, an exposition of truth is to be accepted; otherwise
even what is regarded as divine revealation is to be rejected. Even a young
boy's words are to be accepted if they are words of wisdom; else reject it
like straw even if uttered by Brahma the creator.</b>" (Vasishta's Yoga translated
by Swami Venkatesananda)
Vacaspati Misra, the author of Vamati, says, "<b>Even one thousand scriptural
statements cannot transform a jar into a piece of cloth</b>".
If we are free to reject scripture which is regarded as divine revealation then why do we have to accept Shankara's views in its entirety? Shankara was a genius no doubt but he also carried some of the prejudices of his time. We have to read Shankara with that in mind. Shankara says quite clearly in Viveka Chudamani that a male body is a necessary for salvation. Can we agree with such a statement today?
The way out is what I suggested previously. Words like Sudra and Brahmana in Hindu scripture should be understood from the context. The word Shudra in Ramayana's Shambhuka episode does not refer to people who are called Shudras today.
Hindu scriptures have also criticized Brahmanas. This is what is written in Mahabharata:
<b>Yayati the said, "The wise know that a Brahmana is more to be avoided than
an angry snake of virulent poison, or a blazing fire of spreading flames.'
Devyani then told the monarch,'O bull among men, why dost thou, indeed, say
that Brahmana should be more avoided than an angry snake of virulent poison or
a blazing fire of spreading flames?' The monarch answered,'The snake killeth
only one. The sharpest weapon slayeth but a single person. The Brahmana,
when angry destroyeth whole cities and kingdoms! Therefore, O timid one, do
I deem a Brahmana as more to be avoided than either......' (Adi Parva LXXXI)</b>
Is King Yayati referring to Brahmana Jati or Brahmana Varna. It is clear from the context that he is talking about people of Brahmana Jati who have Tamasa Guna. Does this refer to people of Brahmana Jati today? The answer is a big no!
Gangajal
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if Sankara held the varna/jati by birth , how does it apply to modern age and to my original concern , how will the footsoldiers be convinced , leave alone them , for people the lower jatis how will they even come out of the self confidence , faith in hinduism tangle .
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to tradition Shankara changed his views late in his short life. This is of course if you believe Shankara wrote Maneesha Panchakam. Moreover Vedantic authors have repeatedly warned us against fundamentalist reading of Hindu scripture.
According to Yoga Vasishta Ramayan (II-18):
<b>Though human in origin, an exposition of truth is to be accepted; otherwise
even what is regarded as divine revealation is to be rejected. Even a young
boy's words are to be accepted if they are words of wisdom; else reject it
like straw even if uttered by Brahma the creator.</b>" (Vasishta's Yoga translated
by Swami Venkatesananda)
Vacaspati Misra, the author of Vamati, says, "<b>Even one thousand scriptural
statements cannot transform a jar into a piece of cloth</b>".
If we are free to reject scripture which is regarded as divine revealation then why do we have to accept Shankara's views in its entirety? Shankara was a genius no doubt but he also carried some of the prejudices of his time. We have to read Shankara with that in mind. Shankara says quite clearly in Viveka Chudamani that a male body is a necessary for salvation. Can we agree with such a statement today?
The way out is what I suggested previously. Words like Sudra and Brahmana in Hindu scripture should be understood from the context. The word Shudra in Ramayana's Shambhuka episode does not refer to people who are called Shudras today.
Hindu scriptures have also criticized Brahmanas. This is what is written in Mahabharata:
<b>Yayati the said, "The wise know that a Brahmana is more to be avoided than
an angry snake of virulent poison, or a blazing fire of spreading flames.'
Devyani then told the monarch,'O bull among men, why dost thou, indeed, say
that Brahmana should be more avoided than an angry snake of virulent poison or
a blazing fire of spreading flames?' The monarch answered,'The snake killeth
only one. The sharpest weapon slayeth but a single person. The Brahmana,
when angry destroyeth whole cities and kingdoms! Therefore, O timid one, do
I deem a Brahmana as more to be avoided than either......' (Adi Parva LXXXI)</b>
Is King Yayati referring to Brahmana Jati or Brahmana Varna. It is clear from the context that he is talking about people of Brahmana Jati who have Tamasa Guna. Does this refer to people of Brahmana Jati today? The answer is a big no!
Gangajal