12-22-2005, 04:17 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sri Shankara also commented on Upanisads that have some very important sages that are women or shUdras.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of the former, if you mean Vachaknavi Gargi and Maitreyi I can understand. Of the latter, do you mean Raikva ? Could you point me to the author (exclusive or otherwise) who had authored the upanishad commented upon by Acharya Shankara. Does Shankaracharya also acknowledge the fact that the upanishadic-teacher does not belong to Trivarna? For in case of Janasruthi (of Raikvaparna fame) the Acharya clarifies that is not a Shudra by birth, but is called so because of his qualities.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Since this shloka has no implications for Advaita vedanta, which was the main purpose of Shri Shankara's commentary, it doesn't carry the same significance as the advaita-vedanta proper portions of his commentary. I will leave it at that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ashok, Varna has no place in Advaita and you know it well. Thus sweeping this under the Advaita rug would only end the discussion, but the question remains. There will be no inquiriy as to why our ancestors had explained such a model. What did they know about Varna and birth that we do not? Why did they think of it as an important aspect even while dwelling in the lofty heights of Nirguna and Vedanta. There has to be a reasoning as to why acharya after acharya, bhashyakara after bhashyakara, in every parampara had held this concept.
I am not expecting an answer from you, nor am I asking that this be answered today. It is just stating what is said by our Rshis and Acharyas and what they believed in. We can either take it or leave it, but it still remains as they said it.
Hari: Om.
Of the former, if you mean Vachaknavi Gargi and Maitreyi I can understand. Of the latter, do you mean Raikva ? Could you point me to the author (exclusive or otherwise) who had authored the upanishad commented upon by Acharya Shankara. Does Shankaracharya also acknowledge the fact that the upanishadic-teacher does not belong to Trivarna? For in case of Janasruthi (of Raikvaparna fame) the Acharya clarifies that is not a Shudra by birth, but is called so because of his qualities.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Since this shloka has no implications for Advaita vedanta, which was the main purpose of Shri Shankara's commentary, it doesn't carry the same significance as the advaita-vedanta proper portions of his commentary. I will leave it at that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ashok, Varna has no place in Advaita and you know it well. Thus sweeping this under the Advaita rug would only end the discussion, but the question remains. There will be no inquiriy as to why our ancestors had explained such a model. What did they know about Varna and birth that we do not? Why did they think of it as an important aspect even while dwelling in the lofty heights of Nirguna and Vedanta. There has to be a reasoning as to why acharya after acharya, bhashyakara after bhashyakara, in every parampara had held this concept.
I am not expecting an answer from you, nor am I asking that this be answered today. It is just stating what is said by our Rshis and Acharyas and what they believed in. We can either take it or leave it, but it still remains as they said it.
Hari: Om.