12-23-2005, 03:54 AM
Sunder ji,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have already posted a detailed analysis of Shankara's commentary and the transparent contradiction is his commentary pointed out by Vivekananda.
Yes, I am saying that all the great Masters wrote flawed commentary in this matter. What I am also saying is that it does not affect their writings on other matters. I will give the reason in the last part of my reply.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have asked very good questions. Let me try to answer. I think that the ancients lived by a different social code than us. Let me start with Sri Ramanuja. He supports the idea that Shudras are not eligible for Brahma-Vidya in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya, He takes the opposite stance in his commentary on Gita 9.29-30. He converts thoudands of Shudras to Brahmanahood which just means that he relabels thousands of Shudras. Normally you would expect such a great master to be consistent and yet strangely he isn't consistent. The only answer is that at that time people were not expected to deviate openly from social orthodoxy in their writings and Brahma Sutra is after all a key text of Vedanta. This is the reason why Sri Ramanuja took a position in his commentary on the Brahma Sutra which he did not believe in. If merely relabelling Shudras allows them to become eligible to Brahma-Vidya then why didn't he say so in the BSB?
I suspect that this is also the case with Sri Shankara. He wrote the commentary on the expected socially orthodox lines since ancient Hindu society did not allow freedom of thought on social arrangements. Ancient Hindu society, on the other hand, did allow freedom of thought on the nature of Ultimate Reality. This is the reason why the great Vedantic masters have taken differing positions
on the nature of Ultimate Reality, depending on their personal experience, so freely.
The modern reader has to read the commentaries keeping in mind that ancient Hindu society did not allow freedom in social matters. Thus I would say that only the spiritual aspects of these commentaries survive the ravages of time and the commentaries on social arrangement seem to me to be very dated.
Any way if the vast majority of Hindus asks the parliament to pass a law declaring them to be Brahmins then the politicians will be only too happy to oblige. You might say that such a Brahmanahood will have no validity in the eyes of the devout. My answer will be that such a new arrangement where all Hindus are Brahmins will become acceptable in a matter of decades. Most Brahmins today are from Dalit ancestry. They have been declared as Brahmins either by saints like Sri Ramanuja or by local Rajahs. So our discussion about these commentaries is largely academic.
Gangajal
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have already posted a detailed analysis of Shankara's commentary and the transparent contradiction is his commentary pointed out by Vivekananda.
Yes, I am saying that all the great Masters wrote flawed commentary in this matter. What I am also saying is that it does not affect their writings on other matters. I will give the reason in the last part of my reply.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have asked very good questions. Let me try to answer. I think that the ancients lived by a different social code than us. Let me start with Sri Ramanuja. He supports the idea that Shudras are not eligible for Brahma-Vidya in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya, He takes the opposite stance in his commentary on Gita 9.29-30. He converts thoudands of Shudras to Brahmanahood which just means that he relabels thousands of Shudras. Normally you would expect such a great master to be consistent and yet strangely he isn't consistent. The only answer is that at that time people were not expected to deviate openly from social orthodoxy in their writings and Brahma Sutra is after all a key text of Vedanta. This is the reason why Sri Ramanuja took a position in his commentary on the Brahma Sutra which he did not believe in. If merely relabelling Shudras allows them to become eligible to Brahma-Vidya then why didn't he say so in the BSB?
I suspect that this is also the case with Sri Shankara. He wrote the commentary on the expected socially orthodox lines since ancient Hindu society did not allow freedom of thought on social arrangements. Ancient Hindu society, on the other hand, did allow freedom of thought on the nature of Ultimate Reality. This is the reason why the great Vedantic masters have taken differing positions
on the nature of Ultimate Reality, depending on their personal experience, so freely.
The modern reader has to read the commentaries keeping in mind that ancient Hindu society did not allow freedom in social matters. Thus I would say that only the spiritual aspects of these commentaries survive the ravages of time and the commentaries on social arrangement seem to me to be very dated.
Any way if the vast majority of Hindus asks the parliament to pass a law declaring them to be Brahmins then the politicians will be only too happy to oblige. You might say that such a Brahmanahood will have no validity in the eyes of the devout. My answer will be that such a new arrangement where all Hindus are Brahmins will become acceptable in a matter of decades. Most Brahmins today are from Dalit ancestry. They have been declared as Brahmins either by saints like Sri Ramanuja or by local Rajahs. So our discussion about these commentaries is largely academic.
Gangajal