[Advaita-l] Knowledge, renunciation and varNASrama rules
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 18 21:26:41 CDT 2010
I find that other than Dr. Radhakrishnan no other scholar ever cared to look a the efinition of braahmana given in the Vajrasoochika upaanishad.
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
--- On Wed, 8/18/10, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Knowledge, renunciation and varNASrama rules
To: "Advaita List" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 18, 2010, 1:08 PM
> If he is a Brahmin widower he cannot perform Yajnas. If he is
> Brahmachari finished studies but not married he is a Snataka he cannot
> perform Yajnas. If he has some Vrata he cannot. If he has no Agni he
> For all these Anadhikrutas Adi Sankara says they can become Sanyasi.
Far from it. What you outline is exactly the pUrvapaksha of the hardcore ritualist
that is being refuted in the bhAshya.
And pray, what is the vrata that you have in mind, which will prevent performance
of ANY yajna by a qualified yajamAna? As for a brAhmaNa widower, he cannot
perform some kinds of yajna-s which require the living wife, but he can perform
other kinds of nitya karmA and anushThAna that only require him to be alive and
able. It is not as if the death of a wife suddenly exempts a brAhmaNa widower
from the general requirement of vairAgya and jijnAsA to justify his renunciation.
> He gives Jabala Upanishad reference for this. The Anadhikrutas will
> not be Sudras and Stris. That is very big jump Adi Sankara is not
Where in sUtrabhAshya 3.4.20 does Sankara bhagavatpAda exclude strI and SUdra
from the category of anadhikRta?
I have written more elaborately, drawing 3.4.20 and 1.3.34-38 together, in another
post, detailing why varNa is not even brought up in 3.4.20. It is NOT because the
discussion is already restricted to brAhmaNa varNa. It is because the discussion is
about the brahmasaMstha-lakshaNa of the jnAnI and 1.3.38 has already admitted
that brahmajnAnI-s can be found among those of SUdra birth also. There is no
explicit discussion about strI-s anywhere in the sUtrabhAshya, but extending the
general argument to cover the case of women is straightforward enough. I cited
the name of sulabhA earlier in the discussion, because Sankara bhagavatpAda has
himself mentioned her name as an example in a different context, under the yAvad
adhikAra adhikaraNa. Please think it all through very carefully.
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list