[Advaita-l] Knowledge, renunciation and varNASrama rules

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> > The performance of ritual karmA-s, although aiding in citta Suddhi and
> > preparing the mind for the rise of brahmajnAna, are still only external factors.
> > strI-s and SUdra-s (as much as brAhmaNa males) who have Sama, dama,
> > uparati, titikshA and samAdhAna as mental qualities along with vairAgya
> > already have the citta Suddhi necessary for brahmajnAna, so the question
> > of yajnAdi karmA in this life does not even arise.
> 
> Where is Sastra reference telling they get Citta Suddhi in this way?
> 
 
I would request you to read carefully. I am saying that anybody who already has
citta Suddhi and the sAdhana saMpat for brahmajnAna does not need to do karmA
to get citta Suddhi. It is something that is already there. In my above sentence,
"anybody" could be a dvija man or a SUdra man or a strI of any class.

Let me ask you a counter-question. What SAstra specifies that a SUdra or strI will
be born as a dvija male in a future life and what steps do they have to take to 
ensure that?
 

> My answer is there is no Asrama for Sudras and Stris. 3.4.36 is
> telling only about other Brahmins not in Asramas for some reason.
> Vacaknavi is explained in this way. The name is in Br Upanishad . In
> some other Kalpa women had right to Upanayana and other Vedic karmas
> not now. No Upanayana for Stri now.

You restrict your focus to brAhmaNa-s not in an ASrama for some reason and
then invoke kalpa to "explain away" the citing of vAcaknavI's name. Pray, give
me a reference from the sUtra bhAshya or the upanishad bhAshya where 
such a reason is given as an explanation for the case of gArgI vAcaknavI. 
 
> 
> > If your answer is that a married SUdra can be called a gRhastha, then isn't
> > such a gRhastha taking the necessary steps to citta-Suddhi by materially
> > supporting his family and leading a productive life? Same goes for the
> > married strI. If the married woman can be called a gRhasthA, isn't she
> > gaining citta Suddhi merely by fulfilling her roles and duties in life?
> > Moreover, under the scenario of your allowing gRhastha status for women
> > and married SUdra men, what objection would you have to classifying the
> > unmarried woman and unmarried SUdra man again as "anyatama-ASrama-
> > pratipatti-hIna"?
> 
> This does not arise.

Why, because of the kalpa argument? Where in the sUtrabhAshya do you find 
anything to support your stance about kalpa?
 
> 
> >
> > Getting back to 3.4.37 and 3.4.38, Sankara bhagavatpAda says "anapekshita
> > ASrama-karmaNAm api" and "asaMbhavAd ASrama-karmaNo'pi". These
> > terms apply not only to brAhmaNa males, but to anybody for whom there is
> > no expectation of ASrama-specific karmA (anapekshA) or for whom ASrama-
> > specific karmA is impossible (asaMbhava). He then goes on to say, "janma-
> > antara-anushThitair api ca ASrama-karmabhis saMbhavaty eva vidyAyA
> > anugrahaH. ... ... janmAntara-saMcitAn api saMskAra-viSeshAn", which is
> > exactly the same as what he says about vidura and dharmavyAdha attaining
> > to jnAna due to saMskAra-s of previous action (pUrva-kRta saMskAra vaSAt).
> >
> 
> In all this he is saying other Brahmins only not Sudras and Stris.
> They cannot be in same group.

If the reference to saMskAra-s from previous births in 3.4.38 applies only to ASrama
hIna brAhmaNa-s and not to anybody else, then please explain what the pUrva-kRta
saMskAra means for vidura and dharmavyAdha in 1.3.38. Note that you cannot cite
a previous kalpa argument in this case, because the accepted tradition is that the
mahAbhArata war marks the beginning of the current kali yuga, very much within
the current kalpa and the current manvantara.

 
> 
> How do you explain this ? What Vidya is Sudra not fit to get?

I have already explained my stance with a lot of detail. I don't get what you mean
by the second question.
 
> Moreover in 1 3.34 he says Sudro Yajne Anavakliptaha the Sudra is not
> fit to do Yajnas. In same sentence he says Vidyayam Api
> Anavakliptatvam Dyotayati. Sudra is not fit for Vidya also. Nyayasya
> Sadharanatvat. Because the same logic to not allow Sudra to do Yajna
> and not allow him to get Vidya. He does not have sacred thread.
> 

But the adhikAra for the vidyA obtainable through itihAsa-purANa is affirmed,
and explicitly so. 
 
> >>
> >> These are referenced again in Jabala Sruti 'Atha Punareva Vratee Va
> >> Avratee Va Snatako Va Asnatako Va Utsannagnir Anagniko Va' in 3 4.20
> >> about Anadhikrutas. What do you say for this Sruti sentence?
> >>
> >
> > I already discussed the wider implication of the word anadhikRta in my previous
> > posts on this topic.
> 
> Sorry I did not understand properly.
> 

Simple. For you, anadhikRta means a brAhmaNa male who does not have adhikAra,
for one reason or the other. For me (and for a number of traditional authorities),
the word anadhikRta means any human being who does not have adhikAra.
 
Vidyasankar