12-23-2005, 01:25 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-sarangadhara+Dec 22 2005, 04:45 AM-->QUOTE(sarangadhara @ Dec 22 2005, 04:45 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If you could please throw light on ramanujacharya's position on the same would be most happy .
[right][snapback]43578[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Vedântâ-Sûtras With Commentary by Râmânuja
translated by George Thibaut
The spellings used in transliteration for Janasruthi is a bit odd, but readable nonetheless.
http://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48132.htm
1.3.34. And on account of (Gânasruti ) kshattriya-hood being understood.
The first section of the vidyâ tells us that Gânasruti bestowed much wealth and food; later on he is represented as sending his door-keeper on an errand; and in the end, as bestowing on Raikva many villages--which shows him to be a territorial lord. All these circumstances suggest Gânasruti's being a Kshattriya, and hence not a member of the lowest caste.--The above Sûtra having declared that the kshattriya-hood of Gânasruti is indicated in the introductory legend, the next Sûtra shows that the same circumstance is indicated in the concluding legend.
35. On account of the inferential sign further on, together with Kaitraratha. (read Chaithraratha.)
http://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48133.htm
The kshattriya-hood of Gânasruti is further to be accepted on account of the Kshattriya Abhipratârin Kaitraratha, who is mentioned further on in this very same Samvargavidyâ which Raikva imparts to Gânasruti.--But why?--As follows. The section beginning 'Once a Brahmakârin (Read Brahmacharin) begged of Saunaka Kâpeya and Abhipratârin Kâkshaseni while being waited on at their meal,' and ending 'thus do we, O Brahmakârin, meditate on that being,' shows Kâpeya, Abhipratârin, and the Brahmakârin to be connected with the Samvarga-vidyâ. Now Abhipratârin is a Kshattriya, the other two are Brâhmanas. <b>This shows that there are connected with the vidyâ, Brâhmanas, and from among non-Brâhmanas, a Kshattriya only, but not a Sûdra.</b> It therefore appears appropriate to infer that the person, other than the <b>Brâhmana Raikva,</b> (This addresses Ashok's speculation of Raikva being a cart-driver and hence a Shudra.) who is likewise connected with this vidyâ, viz. Gânasruti, is likewise a Kshattriya, not a Sûdra.
37. And on account of the procedure, on the ascertainment of the non-being of that.
http://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48135.htm
That a Sûdra is not qualified for knowledge of Brahman appears from that fact also that as soon as Gautama has convinced himself that Gâbâla, who wishes to become his pupil, is not a Sûdra, he proceeds to teach him the knowledge of Brahman.
---------------------------------
Thus Sri Shankaracharya & Sri Ramanujacharya are not contradicting each other atleast on this topic.
[right][snapback]43578[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Vedântâ-Sûtras With Commentary by Râmânuja
translated by George Thibaut
The spellings used in transliteration for Janasruthi is a bit odd, but readable nonetheless.
http://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48132.htm
1.3.34. And on account of (Gânasruti ) kshattriya-hood being understood.
The first section of the vidyâ tells us that Gânasruti bestowed much wealth and food; later on he is represented as sending his door-keeper on an errand; and in the end, as bestowing on Raikva many villages--which shows him to be a territorial lord. All these circumstances suggest Gânasruti's being a Kshattriya, and hence not a member of the lowest caste.--The above Sûtra having declared that the kshattriya-hood of Gânasruti is indicated in the introductory legend, the next Sûtra shows that the same circumstance is indicated in the concluding legend.
35. On account of the inferential sign further on, together with Kaitraratha. (read Chaithraratha.)
http://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48133.htm
The kshattriya-hood of Gânasruti is further to be accepted on account of the Kshattriya Abhipratârin Kaitraratha, who is mentioned further on in this very same Samvargavidyâ which Raikva imparts to Gânasruti.--But why?--As follows. The section beginning 'Once a Brahmakârin (Read Brahmacharin) begged of Saunaka Kâpeya and Abhipratârin Kâkshaseni while being waited on at their meal,' and ending 'thus do we, O Brahmakârin, meditate on that being,' shows Kâpeya, Abhipratârin, and the Brahmakârin to be connected with the Samvarga-vidyâ. Now Abhipratârin is a Kshattriya, the other two are Brâhmanas. <b>This shows that there are connected with the vidyâ, Brâhmanas, and from among non-Brâhmanas, a Kshattriya only, but not a Sûdra.</b> It therefore appears appropriate to infer that the person, other than the <b>Brâhmana Raikva,</b> (This addresses Ashok's speculation of Raikva being a cart-driver and hence a Shudra.) who is likewise connected with this vidyâ, viz. Gânasruti, is likewise a Kshattriya, not a Sûdra.
37. And on account of the procedure, on the ascertainment of the non-being of that.
http://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48135.htm
That a Sûdra is not qualified for knowledge of Brahman appears from that fact also that as soon as Gautama has convinced himself that Gâbâla, who wishes to become his pupil, is not a Sûdra, he proceeds to teach him the knowledge of Brahman.
---------------------------------
Thus Sri Shankaracharya & Sri Ramanujacharya are not contradicting each other atleast on this topic.