Statements in our shastras
ravi chandrasekhara
vadhula at YAHOO.COM
Tue Mar 4 22:27:20 CST 2003
Dear Members,
Thank you for the responses to my questions. I can
"deal" with shastras stating considering women as
flesh, etc to develop vairagya or even "considering
vedic sacrifices as useless" compared to one seeking
moksha. But to see a statement of pouring metal into
a Sudra's ear is contradictory to our morals.
Another qustion I have is about non dvijas not being
being taught Vedas. Does it apply also to sanyasis of
non-dvija background ? (that is their purva ashrama)
For example, Swami Chinmayananda was of the Nayar
caste in Kerala (which belongs to the Sudra varna) and
he gave discourses on Upanishads. Are upanishads
limited to sanyasis of dvija background only or
available to all ?
Dhanyavaad, Ravi Chandrasekhara
--- "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM> wrote:
> My take on this subject. excerpts have been taken
> from several other
> posts in this thread:
>
> Ravi Chandrashekhar wrote:
>
> > I picked up some English translations of quotes
> from our shastras; do
> > they actualy say this or are these
> mistranslations:
> >
> > Apastamba DharmaSutra (2:8)
> >
> > "As it is a sin to touch a Candala, so is it to
> speak to or to look at
> > one"
> > Gautama DharmaSutra (12: 1-6) "If a Sudra uses
> abusive language or
> > physical violence against twice born people, the
> part of his body used
> > for the crime should be chopped off. If he has sex
> with an Arya woman,
> > his penis should be cut off and all his property
> confiscated, if the
> > women had a guardian, then, in addition to the
> above, he shall be
> > executed. And if he listens in on a Vedic
> recitation, his ears shall be
> > filled with molten tin or lac, if he repeats it,
> his tongue shall be cut
> > off, if he commits it to memory, his body shall be
> split asunder."
> >
>
> No our shastras do actually say such things. They
> are not mistranslations
> except for minor quibbles such as the metal involved
> is lead not tin.
>
> Historians will react to such things in one way.
> Politicians in another.
> But what should we as followers of Dharma do? are
> we required to pour led
> in peoples ears? if not, why not since this is
> plainly the wish of Rshi
> Apastambha? Here is one possible solution:
>
> Malolan Cadambi wrote:
>
> > Here is one interesting incident which you might
> want to read about:
> >
>
http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/sep96/0086.html
>
> the Shrivaishnava viewpoint as explained by Mani
> makes sense from their
> point of view because they hold God to be the
> supreme authority. So his
> wishes trump the shastras. From a Smarta point of
> view the Vedas being
> apaurusheya are authoritative in themselves (as are
> the shastras based
> upon them.) and no man or God has the power to alter
> the dharma based upon
> them.
>
> Instead the authority to interpret is given to
> "tradition" as a whole
> (hence the name Smarta) To determine the proper
> action, we need to look
> at what was actually done on a historical basis.
>
> FACT: From ancient times to the present day, the
> non-dvijas have not been
> taught the Vedas.
>
> FACT: There is no historical evidence that anyone
> ever had lead poured
> into their ears for illegitimately listening to the
> Vedas.
>
> FACT: Shankaracharya while explaining the
> apashudraprakarana of the
> Brahmasutras upholds the idea that Shudras may not
> learn the Vedas but
> says they can become jnanis anyway. He gives the
> examples of Vidura and
> Dharmavyadha from the Mahabharat as examples.
>
> By examining these and other facts can we determine
> the proper course of
> action. As Malolan said, reason has to be employed
> here. We cannot
> simply dump our responsibilities into the lap of a
> book or sage, or deity.
>
> Does this mean we can simply do whatever we want?
> After all a brief
> examination of the scene will tell us e.g. not many
> people do
> sandhyavandana these days. May the teachings of
> Rshi Apastambha onthis
> topic be ignored also? No. Because the necessity
> of sandhyavandana isn't
> just a pet theory of Rshi Apastambha but the
> consensus of all the sages
> and acharyas upto the present day. Furthermore
> those who don't do it have
> not carefully examined the facts and determined they
> don't need to but are
> simply ignorant and lazy which disqualifies them as
> judges of Dharma.
>
> Like any successful civilization ours contains a
> certain amount of
> contradiction. Want support for dictatorship? the
> arthashastra advises a
> king to ruthlessly eliminate any competitors to his
> power. But it also
> says the purpose of a king is to "prevent the big
> fish from swallowing the
> little fish" which could be interpreted in a more
> democratic way. The
> staus of women? Some shastras say e.g. to increase
> their vairagya men
> should think of them as nasty bags of blood, filth
> and bones. While
> others they should considered the embodiment of
> Lakshmi Devi and
> misfortune befalls a home were the women are
> mistreated. Or how about
> Karma versus Jnana? Advaita Vedanta becomes a lot
> more convoluted when
> taking Karma into account. Shankaracharya obviously
> prefers Jnana and I
> bet he wished he could just make those parts of the
> shastras that seem to
> promote Karma go away but to his credit he doesn't
> censor. I believe this
> attitude is why the Vedic religion has survived for
> so long when others of
> similiar antiquity have not.
>
> One last point:
>
> > Ravi Chandrashekhar wrote:
> >
> > Vasista DharmaSutra (3:1)
> >
> > "Brahmins who are not learned, do not teach, or
> who do not maintain the
> > sacred fires become equal to sudras."
>
> I do not put this quote in the same class as the
> others. It is a simple
> statement of fact.
>
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> It's a girl! See the pictures -
http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>From Tue Mar 4 22:47:48 2003
Message-Id: <TUE.4.MAR.2003.224748.0800.>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:47:48 -0800
Reply-To: sanjay1297 at yahoo.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
<ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: Sanjay Verma <sanjay1297 at YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Statements in our shastras
In-Reply-To: <20030305042720.33101.qmail at web20104.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1134196364-1046846868=:35333"
--0-1134196364-1046846868=:35333
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hello all,
My sincere apologies if my comments are out of context. I have been busy studying for medical board exams, and as such have not been diligent in reading all the messages on this list serve. So, if my comments are redundant, I am sorry. I came across this email and felt compelled to reply...
While "Shastras" hold a high place in Hindu scripture, let us not forget that they are composed by fallible human beings (i.e., part of the smriti canon of literature). What is written in the various shastras should be taken with a grain of salt -- composed with perhaps good intention, but subject to the cultural and political biases of the time. Whenever there is conflict, the sruti texts always supercede the smriti texts. Therefore, debates about the "morality" or spiritual wisdom of ostensibly prejudiced and inhumane statements (e.g., chopping off the penis of a shudra who has sex with an aryan woman, as quoted below)... debates on these topics are in my opinion a waste of our mental and spiritual energy.
Going back to the purpose of this list serve (Vedanta as taught by Shankaracharya), I believe there is a story about Adi Shankaracharya who encountered an untouchable. At first Sri Shankaracharya was indignant that the low-caste person would not move away from his path. However, when the person responded that the true nature was the Atman, and that for the Atman, there is no low-caste or high-caste, no distinction between "I" and "you", Adi Shankaracharya paid him obeissance for reminding him that worldly distinctions of caste are truly inappropriate for the spiritual sage. Now, I don't have the details of this story memorized... please read this for the spirit of hte message and not the letter of the narration. Thus, women and low-caste memebers being excluded from spiritual teachings is absurd.
I believe on this website, it states that all commentators on Advaita Vedanta make their name by commenting on some canonical works (e.g., Bhagavad Gita, BrahmaSutra, etc.). So, here I refer to BG 5:18, and I quote from Adi Shankaracharya's commentary "Bhagavadgita Bhasya":
"The sages perceive the same truth in the Brahmana, rich in knowledge and culture, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eating outcaste." BG 5:18
Shankara's commentary:
"In the saatvika brahmana, endowed with knowledge ad culture, who has the best latent imporession of life's experiences, inanintermediate being like the cow that is rajasic without such impression, and in the low merely tamasic beings like anelephant etc, the sages are trained to perceive the same, single, and immutable Brahman, wholly unaffected by constituents like the sattva and by the latent impression they generate."
Furthermore, Shankaracharya anticipates the objection:
"Now, is not the food offered by such tained indivuduals forbidden? Vide, the smriti: 'The food should not be accepted from him who invidiously treats equals as unequals and unequals as eqals' GDS. Answer: 'No, the are not tainted. How?' " [going on to BG 5:19 for further explanation]
Furthermore, in BG 18:30-32, Sri Krishna says that that intellect is rajasic [not as pure as sattvic] which erroneously understands righteousness and unreighteousness, duty and non-dute. Adi Shankaracharya explains in his commentary that the righteousness here refers to those actions enjoined by the shastras and unrighteousness referes to those actions forbidden by the shastras. Clearly, the lesson here is to rise above such shastric morals and focus more on the universal, all-pervading divinity.
Near the end of the BG (18:67-71), Sri Krishna says that "this" (i.e, BG) should not be taught to a non-ascetic, a non-devotee, a person who does not seek it, or a person who reviles Him. Note, that there is no mention of caste or gender. Sri Krishna states that A N Y O N E who teaches the BG (to devotees), or who studies this righteous dialogue, or who listens to it, will have offered Him the knowledge sacrifice, which earlier He states is among the highest of sacrifices.
Okay, I must return to my studies... I do hope that we can focus more on the spirit of the all-pervasive Brahman and how to achieve that realization... the ritualistic practices enjoined by the Shastras often times serve to be more divisive rather than cultivating universal love.
Om Shanti,
Sanjay
ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula at YAHOO.COM> wrote:Dear Members,
Thank you for the responses to my questions. I can
"deal" with shastras stating considering women as
flesh, etc to develop vairagya or even "considering
vedic sacrifices as useless" compared to one seeking
moksha. But to see a statement of pouring metal into
a Sudra's ear is contradictory to our morals.
Another qustion I have is about non dvijas not being
being taught Vedas. Does it apply also to sanyasis of
non-dvija background ? (that is their purva ashrama)
For example, Swami Chinmayananda was of the Nayar
caste in Kerala (which belongs to the Sudra varna) and
he gave discourses on Upanishads. Are upanishads
limited to sanyasis of dvija background only or
available to all ?
Dhanyavaad, Ravi Chandrasekhara
--- "Jaldhar H. Vyas" wrote:
> My take on this subject. excerpts have been taken
> from several other
> posts in this thread:
>
> Ravi Chandrashekhar wrote:
>
> > I picked up some English translations of quotes
> from our shastras; do
> > they actualy say this or are these
> mistranslations:
> >
> > Apastamba DharmaSutra (2:8)
> >
> > "As it is a sin to touch a Candala, so is it to
> speak to or to look at
> > one"
> > Gautama DharmaSutra (12: 1-6) "If a Sudra uses
> abusive language or
> > physical violence against twice born people, the
> part of his body used
> > for the crime should be chopped off. If he has sex
> with an Arya woman,
> > his penis should be cut off and all his property
> confiscated, if the
> > women had a guardian, then, in addition to the
> above, he shall be
> > executed. And if he listens in on a Vedic
> recitation, his ears shall be
> > filled with molten tin or lac, if he repeats it,
> his tongue shall be cut
> > off, if he commits it to memory, his body shall be
> split asunder."
> >
>
> No our shastras do actually say such things. They
> are not mistranslations
> except for minor quibbles such as the metal involved
> is lead not tin.
>
> Historians will react to such things in one way.
> Politicians in another.
> But what should we as followers of Dharma do? are
> we required to pour led
> in peoples ears? if not, why not since this is
> plainly the wish of Rshi
> Apastambha? Here is one possible solution:
>
> Malolan Cadambi wrote:
>
> > Here is one interesting incident which you might
> want to read about:
> >
>
http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/sep96/0086.html
>
> the Shrivaishnava viewpoint as explained by Mani
> makes sense from their
> point of view because they hold God to be the
> supreme authority. So his
> wishes trump the shastras. From a Smarta point of
> view the Vedas being
> apaurusheya are authoritative in themselves (as are
> the shastras based
> upon them.) and no man or God has the power to alter
> the dharma based upon
> them.
>
> Instead the authority to interpret is given to
> "tradition" as a whole
> (hence the name Smarta) To determine the proper
> action, we need to look
> at what was actually done on a historical basis.
>
> FACT: From ancient times to the present day, the
> non-dvijas have not been
> taught the Vedas.
>
> FACT: There is no historical evidence that anyone
> ever had lead poured
> into their ears for illegitimately listening to the
> Vedas.
>
> FACT: Shankaracharya while explaining the
> apashudraprakarana of the
> Brahmasutras upholds the idea that Shudras may not
> learn the Vedas but
> says they can become jnanis anyway. He gives the
> examples of Vidura and
> Dharmavyadha from the Mahabharat as examples.
>
> By examining these and other facts can we determine
> the proper course of
> action. As Malolan said, reason has to be employed
> here. We cannot
> simply dump our responsibilities into the lap of a
> book or sage, or deity.
>
> Does this mean we can simply do whatever we want?
> After all a brief
> examination of the scene will tell us e.g. not many
> people do
> sandhyavandana these days. May the teachings of
> Rshi Apastambha onthis
> topic be ignored also? No. Because the necessity
> of sandhyavandana isn't
> just a pet theory of Rshi Apastambha but the
> consensus of all the sages
> and acharyas upto the present day. Furthermore
> those who don't do it have
> not carefully examined the facts and determined they
> don't need to but are
> simply ignorant and lazy which disqualifies them as
> judges of Dharma.
>
> Like any successful civilization ours contains a
> certain amount of
> contradiction. Want support for dictatorship? the
> arthashastra advises a
> king to ruthlessly eliminate any competitors to his
> power. But it also
> says the purpose of a king is to "prevent the big
> fish from swallowing the
> little fish" which could be interpreted in a more
> democratic way. The
> staus of women? Some shastras say e.g. to increase
> their vairagya men
> should think of them as nasty bags of blood, filth
> and bones. While
> others they should considered the embodiment of
> Lakshmi Devi and
> misfortune befalls a home were the women are
> mistreated. Or how about
> Karma versus Jnana? Advaita Vedanta becomes a lot
> more convoluted when
> taking Karma into account. Shankaracharya obviously
> prefers Jnana and I
> bet he wished he could just make those parts of the
> shastras that seem to
> promote Karma go away but to his credit he doesn't
> censor. I believe this
> attitude is why the Vedic religion has survived for
> so long when others of
> similiar antiquity have not.
>
> One last point:
>
> > Ravi Chandrashekhar wrote:
> >
> > Vasista DharmaSutra (3:1)
> >
> > "Brahmins who are not learned, do not teach, or
> who do not maintain the
> > sacred fires become equal to sudras."
>
> I do not put this quote in the same class as the
> others. It is a simple
> statement of fact.
>
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas
> It's a girl! See the pictures -
http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________
The journey of a thousand miles begins
with a single step.--Chinese Proverb
_______________________________________
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
--0-1134196364-1046846868=:35333
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P>Hello all,
<P>My sincere apologies if my comments are out of context. I have been busy studying for medical board exams, and as such have not been diligent in reading all the messages on this list serve. So, if my comments are redundant, I am sorry. I came across this email and felt compelled to reply...
<P>While "Shastras" hold a high place in Hindu scripture, let us not forget that they are composed by fallible human beings (i.e., part of the smriti canon of literature). What is written in the various shastras should be taken with a grain of salt -- composed with perhaps good intention, but subject to the cultural and political biases of the time. Whenever there is conflict, the sruti texts always supercede the smriti texts. Therefore, debates about the "morality" or spiritual wisdom of ostensibly prejudiced and inhumane statements (e.g., chopping off the penis of a shudra who has sex with an aryan woman, as quoted below)... debates on these topics are in my opinion a waste of our mental and spiritual energy.
<P>Going back to the purpose of this list serve (Vedanta as taught by Shankaracharya), I believe there is a story about Adi Shankaracharya who encountered an untouchable. At first Sri Shankaracharya was indignant that the low-caste person would not move away from his path. However, when the person responded that the true nature was the Atman, and that for the Atman, there is no low-caste or high-caste, no distinction between "I" and "you", Adi Shankaracharya paid him obeissance for reminding him that worldly distinctions of caste are truly inappropriate for the spiritual sage. Now, I don't have the details of this story memorized... please read this for the spirit of hte message and not the letter of the narration. Thus, women and low-caste memebers being excluded from spiritual teachings is absurd.
<P>I believe on this website, it states that all commentators on Advaita Vedanta make their name by commenting on some canonical works (e.g., Bhagavad Gita, BrahmaSutra, etc.). So, here I refer to BG 5:18, and I quote from Adi Shankaracharya's commentary "Bhagavadgita Bhasya":
<P>"The sages perceive the same truth in the Brahmana, rich in knowledge and culture, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eating outcaste." BG 5:18
<P>Shankara's commentary:
<P>"In the saatvika brahmana, endowed with knowledge ad culture, who has the best latent imporession of life's experiences, inanintermediate being like the cow that is rajasic without such impression, and in the low merely tamasic beings like anelephant etc, the sages are trained to perceive the same, single, and immutable Brahman, wholly unaffected by constituents like the sattva and by the latent impression they generate."
<P>Furthermore, Shankaracharya anticipates the objection:
<P>"Now, is not the food offered by such tained indivuduals forbidden? Vide, the smriti: 'The food should not be accepted from him who invidiously treats equals as unequals and unequals as eqals' GDS. Answer: 'No, the are not tainted. How?' " [going on to BG 5:19 for further explanation]
<P>Furthermore, in BG 18:30-32, Sri Krishna says that that intellect is rajasic [not as pure as sattvic] which erroneously understands righteousness and unreighteousness, duty and non-dute. Adi Shankaracharya explains in his commentary that the righteousness here refers to those actions enjoined by the shastras and unrighteousness referes to those actions forbidden by the shastras. Clearly, the lesson here is to rise above such shastric morals and focus more on the universal, all-pervading divinity.
<P>Near the end of the BG (18:67-71), Sri Krishna says that "this" (i.e, BG) should not be taught to a non-ascetic, a non-devotee, a person who does not seek it, or a person who reviles Him. Note, that there is no mention of caste or gender. Sri Krishna states that A N Y O N E who teaches the BG (to devotees), or who studies this righteous dialogue, or who listens to it, will have offered Him the knowledge sacrifice, which earlier He states is among the highest of sacrifices.
<P>Okay, I must return to my studies... I do hope that we can focus more on the spirit of the all-pervasive Brahman and how to achieve that realization... the ritualistic practices enjoined by the Shastras often times serve to be more divisive rather than cultivating universal love.
<P>Om Shanti,<BR>Sanjay
<P>
<P> <B><I>ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula at YAHOO.COM></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Dear Members,<BR><BR>Thank you for the responses to my questions. I can<BR>"deal" with shastras stating considering women as<BR>flesh, etc to develop vairagya or even "considering<BR>vedic sacrifices as useless" compared to one seeking<BR>moksha. But to see a statement of pouring metal into<BR>a Sudra's ear is contradictory to our morals.<BR><BR>Another qustion I have is about non dvijas not being<BR>being taught Vedas. Does it apply also to sanyasis of<BR>non-dvija background ? (that is their purva ashrama)<BR>For example, Swami Chinmayananda was of the Nayar<BR>caste in Kerala (which belongs to the Sudra varna) and<BR>he gave discourses on Upanishads. Are upanishads<BR>limited to sanyasis of dvija background only or<BR>available to all ?<BR><BR>Dhanyavaad, Ravi Chandrasekhara<BR><BR>--- "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <JALDHAR at BRAINCELLS.COM>wrote:<BR>> My take on this subject. excerpts have been taken<BR>> from several other<BR>> posts in this thread:<BR>><BR>> Ravi Chandrashekhar wrote:<BR>><BR>> > I picked up some English translations of quotes<BR>> from our shastras; do<BR>> > they actualy say this or are these<BR>> mistranslations:<BR>> ><BR>> > Apastamba DharmaSutra (2:8)<BR>> ><BR>> > "As it is a sin to touch a Candala, so is it to<BR>> speak to or to look at<BR>> > one"<BR>> > Gautama DharmaSutra (12: 1-6) "If a Sudra uses<BR>> abusive language or<BR>> > physical violence against twice born people, the<BR>> part of his body used<BR>> > for the crime should be chopped off. If he has sex<BR>> with an Arya woman,<BR>> > his penis should be cut off and all his property<BR>> confiscated, if the<BR>> > women had a guardian, then, in addition to the<BR>> above, he shall be<BR>> > executed. And if he listens in on a Vedic<BR>> recitation, his ears shall be<BR>> > filled with molten tin or lac, if he repeats it,<BR>> his tongue shall be cut<BR>> > off, if he commits it to memory, his body shall be<BR>> split asunder."<BR>> ><BR>><BR>> No our shastras do actually say such things. They<BR>> are not mistranslations<BR>> except for minor quibbles such as the metal involved<BR>> is lead not tin.<BR>><BR>> Historians will react to such things in one way.<BR>> Politicians in another.<BR>> But what should we as followers of Dharma do? are<BR>> we required to pour led<BR>> in peoples ears? if not, why not since this is<BR>> plainly the wish of Rshi<BR>> Apastambha? Here is one possible solution:<BR>><BR>> Malolan Cadambi wrote:<BR>><BR>> > Here is one interesting incident which you might<BR>> want to read about:<BR>> ><BR>><BR>http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/sep96/0086.html<BR>><BR>> the Shrivaishnava viewpoint as explained by Mani<BR>> makes sense from their<BR>> point of view because they hold God to be the<BR>> supreme authority. So his<BR>> wishes trump the shastras. From a Smarta point of<BR>> view the Vedas being<BR>> apaurusheya are authoritative in themselves (as are<BR>> the shastras based<BR>> upon them.) and no man or God has the power to alter<BR>> the dharma based upon<BR>> them.<BR>><BR>> Instead the authority to interpret is given to<BR>> "tradition" as a whole<BR>> (hence the name Smarta) To determine the proper<BR>> action, we need to look<BR>> at what was actually done on a historical basis.<BR>><BR>> FACT: From ancient times to the present day, the<BR>> non-dvijas have not been<BR>> taught the Vedas.<BR>><BR>> FACT: There is no historical evidence that anyone<BR>> ever had lead poured<BR>> into their ears for illegitimately listening to the<BR>> Vedas.<BR>><BR>> FACT: Shankaracharya while explaining the<BR>> apashudraprakarana of the<BR>> Brahmasutras upholds the idea that Shudras may not<BR>> learn the Vedas but<BR>> says they can become jnanis anyway. He gives the<BR>> examples of Vidura and<BR>> Dharmavyadha from the Mahabharat as examples.<BR>><BR>> By examining these and other facts can we determine<BR>> the proper course of<BR>> action. As Malolan said, reason has to be employed<BR>> here. We cannot<BR>> simply dump our responsibilities into the lap of a<BR>> book or sage, or deity.<BR>><BR>> Does this mean we can simply do whatever we want?<BR>> After all a brief<BR>> examination of the scene will tell us e.g. not many<BR>> people do<BR>> sandhyavandana these days. May the teachings of<BR>> Rshi Apastambha onthis<BR>> topic be ignored also? No. Because the necessity<BR>> of sandhyavandana isn't<BR>> just a pet theory of Rshi Apastambha but the<BR>> consensus of all the sages<BR>> and acharyas upto the present day. Furthermore<BR>> those who don't do it have<BR>> not carefully examined the facts and determined they<BR>> don't need to but are<BR>> simply ignorant and lazy which disqualifies them as<BR>> judges of Dharma.<BR>><BR>> Like any successful civilization ours contains a<BR>> certain amount of<BR>> contradiction. Want support for dictatorship? the<BR>> arthashastra advises a<BR>> king to ruthlessly eliminate any competitors to his<BR>> power. But it also<BR>> says the purpose of a king is to "prevent the big<BR>> fish from swallowing the<BR>> little fish" which could be interpreted in a more<BR>> democratic way. The<BR>> staus of women? Some shastras say e.g. to increase<BR>> their vairagya men<BR>> should think of them as nasty bags of blood, filth<BR>> and bones. While<BR>> others they should considered the embodiment of<BR>> Lakshmi Devi and<BR>> misfortune befalls a home were the women are<BR>> mistreated. Or how about<BR>> Karma versus Jnana? Advaita Vedanta becomes a lot<BR>> more convoluted when<BR>> taking Karma into account. Shankaracharya obviously<BR>> prefers Jnana and I<BR>> bet he wished he could just make those parts of the<BR>> shastras that seem to<BR>> promote Karma go away but to his credit he doesn't<BR>> censor. I believe this<BR>> attitude is why the Vedic religion has survived for<BR>> so long when others of<BR>> similiar antiquity have not.<BR>><BR>> One last point:<BR>><BR>> > Ravi Chandrashekhar wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > Vasista DharmaSutra (3:1)<BR>> ><BR>> > "Brahmins who are not learned, do not teach, or<BR>> who do not maintain the<BR>> > sacred fires become equal to sudras."<BR>><BR>> I do not put this quote in the same class as the<BR>> others. It is a simple<BR>> statement of fact.<BR>><BR>> --<BR>> Jaldhar H. Vyas <JALDHAR at BRAINCELLS.COM><BR>> It's a girl! See the pictures -<BR>http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/<BR><BR><BR>__________________________________________________<BR>Do you Yahoo!?<BR>Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more<BR>http://taxes.yahoo.com/</BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>_______________________________________<br><br>The journey of a thousand miles begins<br>with a single step.--Chinese Proverb<br><br>_______________________________________<p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Tax Center</a> - forms, calculators, tips, and more
--0-1134196364-1046846868=:35333--
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list