12-23-2005, 02:42 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But I sincerely doubt that he is echoing his personal feelings as opposed to Vedic statements. If it were his personal feelings, he would have been challenged and defeated by his own gurus, sahapaatis, prathidvandhis or shishyas.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sunder ji,
This is a good point. What you are saying is that he was forced to followi the social mores of his times. This might be the reason for his flawed commentary on the Shudra issue in Brahma Sutra. 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. It is entirely possible that Shankara was indicating that he did not agree with his own commentary on Shudras by transparently contradicting his earlier stand.
I think it is very difficult to know why the ancients in any land behaved the way they did. Julius Caeser says in his book "The Conquest of Gaul" that the Druids practiced untouchability and their ritual language was not taught to ordinary people of Gaul (All regions North and west of Italy except for Germany). Why Druids behaved like that is not clear. Caeser thought that Druidic priests wanted to ensure their monopoly. Caeser, himself, appears at least in his writing to be a very civilized man but at the same time has no problem in selling off people of cities he captured as slaves. Apparently he did not find slavery a bad thing. The Christian Bible also does not condemn slavery. So Hindus are not alone in these things.
What is difficult to understand is why the ancients did not see that their spiritual books must be kept free of undesirable social teachings. The only thing that I can think of is blind prejudice. Then there are cases where a person supports both sides of the same issue and in his actions clearly supports one side. Sri Ramanuja is one such person. He takes the Shankara position in BSB. He takes the opposing position in the Gita. He "converts" thousands of Shudras to Brahmanahood. It is hard to understand the inner workings of such a mind.
Gangajal
Sunder ji,
This is a good point. What you are saying is that he was forced to followi the social mores of his times. This might be the reason for his flawed commentary on the Shudra issue in Brahma Sutra. 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. It is entirely possible that Shankara was indicating that he did not agree with his own commentary on Shudras by transparently contradicting his earlier stand.
I think it is very difficult to know why the ancients in any land behaved the way they did. Julius Caeser says in his book "The Conquest of Gaul" that the Druids practiced untouchability and their ritual language was not taught to ordinary people of Gaul (All regions North and west of Italy except for Germany). Why Druids behaved like that is not clear. Caeser thought that Druidic priests wanted to ensure their monopoly. Caeser, himself, appears at least in his writing to be a very civilized man but at the same time has no problem in selling off people of cities he captured as slaves. Apparently he did not find slavery a bad thing. The Christian Bible also does not condemn slavery. So Hindus are not alone in these things.
What is difficult to understand is why the ancients did not see that their spiritual books must be kept free of undesirable social teachings. The only thing that I can think of is blind prejudice. Then there are cases where a person supports both sides of the same issue and in his actions clearly supports one side. Sri Ramanuja is one such person. He takes the Shankara position in BSB. He takes the opposing position in the Gita. He "converts" thousands of Shudras to Brahmanahood. It is hard to understand the inner workings of such a mind.
Gangajal