12-23-2005, 01:21 AM
sarangadhara ji,
I have given below Sri Ramanuja's relevant Brahma Sutra Bhasya and his commentary on the Gita. If I didn't know that the same person has written these two commentaries then I would have thought that 2 completely different persons have written these two commentaries. There are also illogical arguments in his commentary of BSSB I.III.33.
Gangajal
***********************************************************************************************************************
Ramanuja's Bhasya (I.III.33)
<b>In the last topic it has been shown that the gods are entitled to
Brahma-Vidya. This topic discusses whether the Shudras are entitled to it.
Since like the gods, the Shudras also are possessed of a body, capacity and
desire for final liberation, it naturally follows that they too are entitled
to Brahma-vidya. Maybe they are debarred from the Vedic studies, yet as
Upasanas consist of mental activity the Shudras have the necessary
qualifications for that and they can get the necessary knowledge about the
nature of Brahman and the methods of meditation from Puranas and Itihasas
for they have a right though not for Vedic studies. We also hear of Shudras
like Vidura who were established in the knowledge of Brahman. In the
Upanishads we have instances where Brahma-Vidya has been imparted to Shudras.
In the Samvargavidya (Chandogya Upanishad IV) we find that there was a great
king called Janasruti who was famous for his good works. In order to create
a desire in him for the knowledge of Brahman two Rsis took the form of swans
and approached the place where Janasruti was sitting. One of them praised the
king while the other spoke contemptously of him as he did not have the
knowledge of Brahman like Raikva whom he praised. The king on hearing this
was smitten with grief for not having this knowledge of Brahman and so
approached Raikva with presents for getting this knowledge from him. This
sage Raikva addressed him twice as "shudra'. Raikva said,'O Shudra, you have
bought all these presents! Even by this means you will make me talk'
(Chandogya Upanishad IV.II.5). After addressing the king thus, Raikva taught
him Brahman.
This Sutra refutes this view and denies to Sudras by caste, the right to
Brahmavidya. Though meditation is only a mental activity yet the intellectual
knowledge required as a means to the Upasanas is not possible without the
study of the Vedas, as in the case of ritualistic action. As Shudras are
barred from the Vedic studies they cannot therefore have the necessary
qualifications for such Upasanas. Itihasas and Puranas only reiterate the
knowledge derived from the Vedic studies and so there is no chance of the
Shudras getting knowledge from them, without the necessary background from the
study of the Vedas. Vidura and others had this knowledge on account of the
samskaras of a previous life. Moreover, that Janasruti was addressed by Raikva
as 'Sudra' is not because he belonged to that caste by birth; it refers to his
grief for not having the knowledge of Brahman, for 'Sudra' etymologically
means 'one who grieves'. So Shudras by caste are not entitled to Brahma Vidya.
Ref"Brahma-Sutra Sri Bhasya tr:Swamis Vireswarananda and Adidevananda,
Advaita Ashrama.</b>
***************************************************************************
I <b>am the same to all creation. There is none hateful or dear to Me. But those
who worship Me with devotion abide in Me and I do abide in them. (Gita 9.29)
Sri Ramanuja's commentary:
Being a refuge for all, I am the same to all creation, be they gods, animals,
men or immovables, who exist differentiated from the highest to the lowest
according to their birth, form, nature and knowledge. With regard to those
seeking refuge, none is hateful because of inferiority in status by birth,
form, nature, knowledge etc. No one is discarded as an object of odium.
Likewise, it is not that one who has resorted to Me is dear to Me on account
of considerations like birth, status etc. That he has taken refuge in Me is
the only consideration. The meaning is no one is accepted as a refuge for
reasons of birth. But those who worship Me as their sole objective I like,
because I am exceedingly dear to them, and because they find it impossible to
sustain themselves without My worship. So they abide in Me, irrespective of
whether they are exalted or humble by birth etc. They abide in Me, as if they
possess qualities equal to Mine. I also abide in them, as if they are My
superiors. Moreover:
If even the most sinful man worships Me with undivided devotion, he must be
regarded as holy, for he has rightly resolved. (Gita 9.30)
Even though he has trangressed rules that ought to be followed and has failed
to avoid what a person belonging to a particular class should avoid, if he has
begun to worship Me in the manner described above with undivided devotion,
namely, with worship as the only purpose - such a person must be considered
highly righteous. He is eminent among the worshippers of Vishnu. ......
(Sri Ramanuja Gita Bhasya tr: by Swami Adidevananda)</b>
I have given below Sri Ramanuja's relevant Brahma Sutra Bhasya and his commentary on the Gita. If I didn't know that the same person has written these two commentaries then I would have thought that 2 completely different persons have written these two commentaries. There are also illogical arguments in his commentary of BSSB I.III.33.
Gangajal
***********************************************************************************************************************
Ramanuja's Bhasya (I.III.33)
<b>In the last topic it has been shown that the gods are entitled to
Brahma-Vidya. This topic discusses whether the Shudras are entitled to it.
Since like the gods, the Shudras also are possessed of a body, capacity and
desire for final liberation, it naturally follows that they too are entitled
to Brahma-vidya. Maybe they are debarred from the Vedic studies, yet as
Upasanas consist of mental activity the Shudras have the necessary
qualifications for that and they can get the necessary knowledge about the
nature of Brahman and the methods of meditation from Puranas and Itihasas
for they have a right though not for Vedic studies. We also hear of Shudras
like Vidura who were established in the knowledge of Brahman. In the
Upanishads we have instances where Brahma-Vidya has been imparted to Shudras.
In the Samvargavidya (Chandogya Upanishad IV) we find that there was a great
king called Janasruti who was famous for his good works. In order to create
a desire in him for the knowledge of Brahman two Rsis took the form of swans
and approached the place where Janasruti was sitting. One of them praised the
king while the other spoke contemptously of him as he did not have the
knowledge of Brahman like Raikva whom he praised. The king on hearing this
was smitten with grief for not having this knowledge of Brahman and so
approached Raikva with presents for getting this knowledge from him. This
sage Raikva addressed him twice as "shudra'. Raikva said,'O Shudra, you have
bought all these presents! Even by this means you will make me talk'
(Chandogya Upanishad IV.II.5). After addressing the king thus, Raikva taught
him Brahman.
This Sutra refutes this view and denies to Sudras by caste, the right to
Brahmavidya. Though meditation is only a mental activity yet the intellectual
knowledge required as a means to the Upasanas is not possible without the
study of the Vedas, as in the case of ritualistic action. As Shudras are
barred from the Vedic studies they cannot therefore have the necessary
qualifications for such Upasanas. Itihasas and Puranas only reiterate the
knowledge derived from the Vedic studies and so there is no chance of the
Shudras getting knowledge from them, without the necessary background from the
study of the Vedas. Vidura and others had this knowledge on account of the
samskaras of a previous life. Moreover, that Janasruti was addressed by Raikva
as 'Sudra' is not because he belonged to that caste by birth; it refers to his
grief for not having the knowledge of Brahman, for 'Sudra' etymologically
means 'one who grieves'. So Shudras by caste are not entitled to Brahma Vidya.
Ref"Brahma-Sutra Sri Bhasya tr:Swamis Vireswarananda and Adidevananda,
Advaita Ashrama.</b>
***************************************************************************
I <b>am the same to all creation. There is none hateful or dear to Me. But those
who worship Me with devotion abide in Me and I do abide in them. (Gita 9.29)
Sri Ramanuja's commentary:
Being a refuge for all, I am the same to all creation, be they gods, animals,
men or immovables, who exist differentiated from the highest to the lowest
according to their birth, form, nature and knowledge. With regard to those
seeking refuge, none is hateful because of inferiority in status by birth,
form, nature, knowledge etc. No one is discarded as an object of odium.
Likewise, it is not that one who has resorted to Me is dear to Me on account
of considerations like birth, status etc. That he has taken refuge in Me is
the only consideration. The meaning is no one is accepted as a refuge for
reasons of birth. But those who worship Me as their sole objective I like,
because I am exceedingly dear to them, and because they find it impossible to
sustain themselves without My worship. So they abide in Me, irrespective of
whether they are exalted or humble by birth etc. They abide in Me, as if they
possess qualities equal to Mine. I also abide in them, as if they are My
superiors. Moreover:
If even the most sinful man worships Me with undivided devotion, he must be
regarded as holy, for he has rightly resolved. (Gita 9.30)
Even though he has trangressed rules that ought to be followed and has failed
to avoid what a person belonging to a particular class should avoid, if he has
begun to worship Me in the manner described above with undivided devotion,
namely, with worship as the only purpose - such a person must be considered
highly righteous. He is eminent among the worshippers of Vishnu. ......
(Sri Ramanuja Gita Bhasya tr: by Swami Adidevananda)</b>