12-23-2005, 03:17 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What you are saying is that he was forced to followi the social mores of his times.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would not use the word 'forced' as I do not think he was compelled by the thinking of his times. His stance on Absolute Brahman was not the conventional thinking of his time, and there was vehement opposition in his time - and continuing into modern times by Dvaiti and Vishistadvaithins too. This makes me say Sri Shankara was not someone who would cow down to social pressures. Mind you, even the Rig Vedas have Rishikas whom Shankara did not look upon disparagingly. He also had debates someone as eminent as Bharathi at Mahishmathi. He did not think of it as high or low to debate with a woman. Nor do I think women were repressed in Hinduism. Not having access to Vedas does not mean repression - Women could not perform agnihotra etc directly. The only time they could pour oblations into fire was during Vivaha ceremony. This is a topic of Dharma sankatam.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This might be the reason for his flawed commentary on the Shudra issue in Brahma Sutra.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would not say he was flawed without showing exactly why and how he was flawed. Perhaps you can set an example by being the purvapakshi and object to his stance based on shruthis. You are implying that Shankara, Ramanuja, Madva, Vallabha, Nimbarka et all were flawed on this matter. This would put a big questionmark on their other works too as it was written by incompetent masters who were socially influenced and did not have an objective view of the Truth.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He found it impossible to oppose the Brahma Sutra teaching and supported the exclusion of Shudras even though that meant he had to transparently contradict his own position. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What made it impossible for Shankara to tell the truth and self contradict? Was he fearing retribution, rebellion, humiliation, or lack of recognition? What would make a Great Acharya to tell the TRUTH in one place that suits modern social thinking and hide it another place?
Your points about the Druids and Caesar is pretty interesting AND thought-provoking. This pattern had been observed everywhere from Egyptians to Aztecs. The Priests ruled high communing with the Cosmic forces. They were great Astronomers and had an insight into nature of beings rare to find today. To dig into that thought process and analyzing it would be interesting in itself. I hope I can see someone do it in my lifetime.
I would not use the word 'forced' as I do not think he was compelled by the thinking of his times. His stance on Absolute Brahman was not the conventional thinking of his time, and there was vehement opposition in his time - and continuing into modern times by Dvaiti and Vishistadvaithins too. This makes me say Sri Shankara was not someone who would cow down to social pressures. Mind you, even the Rig Vedas have Rishikas whom Shankara did not look upon disparagingly. He also had debates someone as eminent as Bharathi at Mahishmathi. He did not think of it as high or low to debate with a woman. Nor do I think women were repressed in Hinduism. Not having access to Vedas does not mean repression - Women could not perform agnihotra etc directly. The only time they could pour oblations into fire was during Vivaha ceremony. This is a topic of Dharma sankatam.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This might be the reason for his flawed commentary on the Shudra issue in Brahma Sutra.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would not say he was flawed without showing exactly why and how he was flawed. Perhaps you can set an example by being the purvapakshi and object to his stance based on shruthis. You are implying that Shankara, Ramanuja, Madva, Vallabha, Nimbarka et all were flawed on this matter. This would put a big questionmark on their other works too as it was written by incompetent masters who were socially influenced and did not have an objective view of the Truth.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He found it impossible to oppose the Brahma Sutra teaching and supported the exclusion of Shudras even though that meant he had to transparently contradict his own position. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What made it impossible for Shankara to tell the truth and self contradict? Was he fearing retribution, rebellion, humiliation, or lack of recognition? What would make a Great Acharya to tell the TRUTH in one place that suits modern social thinking and hide it another place?
Your points about the Druids and Caesar is pretty interesting AND thought-provoking. This pattern had been observed everywhere from Egyptians to Aztecs. The Priests ruled high communing with the Cosmic forces. They were great Astronomers and had an insight into nature of beings rare to find today. To dig into that thought process and analyzing it would be interesting in itself. I hope I can see someone do it in my lifetime.