[Advaita-l] About Satyakama

Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Tue Jun 28 02:12:51 CDT 2016

This entire discussion is deeply unedifying. There is no need to get
personal, and to drag family members into this is inexcusable.

Please stop, everyone.
On 27 Jun 2016 8:03 p.m., "Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Aurobind Padiyath wrote:
>> Sri Vyasji,
>> Mind your words, it doesn't speak good of you.
> Some words I mind include "The purpose of Advaita-L is to discuss
> advaita-vedAnta as taught by SrI Sankara and the smArta sampradAya."  I
> don't remember anything about catering to the whims of nastikas in there.
> Learn to admit that
>> Bhashyakara was not impeccable and did have his own limitations.
> All those of us who have struggled to understand under the guidance of
> Shankara Bhagavatapada must rejoice that we now have the superior wisdom of
> the great vidvan Aurobind Padiyath to lead us instead.
> With all reverence to Acharaya for his elucidation of the shaastras, I will
>> not hesitate to point out where he has twisted the originals to meet some
>> compulsion of his times which we are unaware of today.
> Such an intellectual daredevil!  In fact this bogus interpretation of the
> satyakama story was refuted the day the first idiot reformer expounded it.
> It is a testament to the mental backwardness of modern India that it is
> still being peddled in 2016.
> To evaluate his commentary is not an ordinary task. But where he had his
>> prejudice to highlight Brahamins by birth ( जात्या ब्राह्मणः) and due to
>> this if he had over stepped in twisting the shaastras,  it need to be
>> accepted.
> And now we were getting to the bottom of the issue.  You are not motivated
> by a desire to understand the truth of the meaning of shruti but by
> politics.  Why then even bother hiding under the skirts of shastra?  Just
> create your own Aurobind Upanishad which says whatever you want.
> Of all the various manias of the modernists this bizarre need to show thst
> caste is not based on birth is one of the weirdest.  The English medium set
> treat it like it some kind of anomaly  but there is no need for
> text-juggling.  We know from DNA evidence that it has been based on birth
> for at least EIGHT HUNDRED years before the advent of Shankaracharya. What
> remains to be explained is why people like you cannot grasp something the
> simplest villager understands.
> There is even one incident where his own disciple Sri Sureswaracharya
>> himself corrects his master of his over zealous approach in protecting the
>> rights of above class.
> Which youtube video did you learn that in? In the sampradaya there are
> differences of emphasis here and there but broad agreement in general. Can
> you show any Advaita acharya who disagrees with Shankaracharya on the
> interpretation of _this_ particular shruti?
>> Few places where this has been done are:
>> 1. Jabala's statement of " as a young maiden,  I had served many (बह्वहं
>> चरन्तीत्यादि )  as a Bahucharini, she had entertained many." Is the
>> Upanishad
>> wordings.
> Your continuing efforts to besmirch the virtue of a bharatiya nari are not
> very progressive at all.
> Anyway as you have kindly provided the text let's see what it says...
> ४,४.१
>> सत्यकामो ह जाबालो जबालां मातरमामन्त्रयां चक्रे ।
>> ब्रह्मचर्यं भवति विवत्स्यामि किंगोत्रो न्वहमस्मीति ॥ ४,४.१ ॥
> "satyakAma the jAbAlA declared[1] to his mother jabAlA, "I wish to take
> brahmachArya.  Which gotra am I?"
> [1] In Gujarati AmantraNa means an invitation. So here I think the
> appropriate translation is "declared" or "addressed"
> __________
>> भाष्य ४,४.१ सर्वं वागाद्यग्न्यादि चान्नान्नादत्वसंस्तुतं जगदेकीकृत्य
>> षोडशधा प्रविभज्य
>> तस्मिन्ब्रह्मदृष्टिर्विधातव्येत्यारभ्यते ।
>> श्रद्धातपसोर्ब्रह्मोपासनाङ्गत्वप्रदर्शनायाऽख्यायिका ।
>> सत्यकामो ह नामतो हशब्द ऐतिह्यार्थो जबालाया अपत्यं जाबालो जबलां स्वां
>> मातरमामन्त्रयाञ्चक्र
>> आमन्त्रितवान् ।
>> ब्रह्मचर्यं स्वाध्यायग्रहणाय हे भवति विवत्स्याम्याचार्यकुले,
>> किङ्गोत्रोऽहं किमस्य मम गोत्रं सोऽहं
>> न्वहमस्मीति ॥१ ॥
>> ४,४.२
> "Having explained all as speech, fire etc., food and the eater of food as
> the components of the world divided into sixteen parts the establishment of
> those as brahman begins.[2] This story[3] depicts shraddhA and tapa as the
> a~ngas of brahmopAsanA.  satyakAma by name called jAbAla, the word ha
> connotes relationship, the son of jabAlA, declared to his mother, declared
> means formally addressed.[4] "I wish to take brahmacharya", brahmacharya is
> the recitation of the Veda[5] in the AchAryas house. "Which gotra am I" to
> which gotra do I belong to.
> [2] These are various upasanas that have been described in the previous
> section of the upanishad.  Now it aims to show that these are meditations
> on Brahman."
> [3] akhyAyikA.
> [4] See my note [1] above.
> [5] svAdhyAya.  There are other duties of a brahmachAri but this is the
> main one.
> सा हैनमुवाच ।
>> नाहमेतद्वेद तात यद्गोत्रस्त्वमसि ।
>> बह्वहं चरन्ती परिचारिणी यौवने त्वामलभे ।
>> साहमेतन्न वेद यद्गोत्रस्त्वमसि ।
>> जबाला तु नामाहमस्मि ।
>> सत्यकामो नाम त्वमसि ।
>> स सत्यकाम एव जाबालो ब्रुवीथा इति ॥ ४,४.२ ॥
> "She said to him 'I don't know which gotra are you. In my youth when I got
> you I had been busy with many as an attendant[6] so I do not know your
> gotra. But I am named jabAlA and you are named satyakAma thus you may call
> yourself satyakAma jAbAlA"
> [6] Shri Subrahmaniam has already explained why your interpretation of
> bahvahaM charanti is wrong.  Let us look at the other word parichAriNI.
> This is a feminine noun meaning one who does parichArya and here is the
> dictionary definition of that word: 1. service, attendence. 2. Adoration,
> worship.  Now think about the second definition for a minute.  When we do
> puja, how do we serve the deity?  You provide water for ablutions and
> bathing, fresh clothes, garland, food etc. In other words the upacharas of
> puja mimic in a more formal, styized way the steps you would take to
> welcome a guest.  For a grhastha, hospitality is an important part of his
> dharma.  (atithi devo bhava as another upanishad says.)  It falls upon the
> gR^ihiNI to organize all this.  She would be proud to say there were many
> guests in her home.  I don't know how Mrs. Padiyath entertains guests but
> my experience is there is no sexual connotation to hospitality.  But in one
> of your links Prabhupada (who is not even an Advaitin and a joke even
> amongst Vaishnavas) goes as far as to call her a prostitute.  How apalling!
> __________
>> भाष्य ४,४.२ एवं पृष्टा जबाला सा हैनं पुत्रमुवाचनाहमेतत्तव गोत्रं वेद हे
>> तात यद्गोत्रस्त्वमसि ।
>> कस्मान्न वेत्सीत्युक्ताऽहबहु भर्तृगृहे परिचर्याजातमतिथ्यभ्यागतादि
>> चरन्त्यहं परिचारिणी
>> परिचरन्तीति परिचरणशीलैवाहं परिचरणचित्ततया गोत्रादिस्मरणे मम मनो नाभूत् ।
>> यौवने च तत्काले त्वामलभे लब्धवत्यस्मि ।
>> तदैव ते पितोपरतः ।
>> अतोऽनाथाहं साहमेतन्न वेद यद्गोत्रस्त्वमसि ।
>> जबाला तु नामाहमस्मि सत्यकामो नाम त्वमसि स त्वं सत्यकाम एवाहं
>> जाबालोऽस्मीत्याचार्याय
>> ब्रुवीथाः यद्याचार्येण पृष्ट इत्यभिप्रायः ॥२ ॥
> "Having being thus questioned jabAlA replies to her son, my dear 'I do not
> know which gotra are you' Why it is asked.  She replies 'as an attendent'
> in my husbands house I was busy[7] as an attendent attending upon many
> guests. 'so I do not know your gotra.' being constantly busy, asking about
> gotra etc. did not enter into my mind. 'In my youth...' at the time when I
> gave birth to you.  At that time your father died. Being a widow I do not
> know your gotra.[8] 'I am named jabAlA and you are named satyakAma'
> therefore 'call yourself satyakAma jAbAlA' when your acharya asks you.
> [7] charanti literally means moving to and fro but I think busy is a more
> apt translation.
> [8] The idea is that if satyakAmas father had been alive he would have
> known the answer.
> ४,४.३, ४
>> स ह हारिद्रुमतं गौतममेत्योवाच ।
>> ब्रह्मचर्यं भगवति वत्स्यामि ।
>> उपेयां भगवन्तमिति ॥ ४,४.३ ॥
> "To the son of haridrumata, gautama, he[9] said 'bhagavAn may I come to
> you as your brahmachAri?'"
> [9] satyakAma
> तं होवाच किंगोत्रो नु सोम्यासीति ।
>> स होवाच ।
>> नाहमेतद्वेद भो यद्गोत्रोऽहमस्मि ।
>> अपृच्छं मातरम् ।
>> सा मा प्रत्यब्रवीद्बह्वहं चरन्ती परिचरिणी यौवने त्वामलभे ।
>> साहमेतन्न वेद यद्गोत्रस्त्वमसि ।
>> जबाला तु नामाहमस्मि ।
>> सत्यकामो नाम त्वमसीति ।
>> सोऽहं सत्यकामो जाबालोऽस्मि भो इति ॥ ४,४.४ ॥
> "He[10] said to him 'which is your gotra dear child?' He[11] said 'I don't
> know sir.  I asked the question what is my gotra to my mother and she
> replied 'In my youth when I got you I had been busy with many as an
> attendant so I do not know your gotra. But I am named jabAlA and you are
> named satyakAma' Therefore I am satyakAma jAbAlA."
> [10] gautama hAridrumata
> [11] satyakAma again
> __________
>> भाष्य ४,४.४ स ह सत्यकामो हारिद्रुमतं हरिद्रुमतोऽपत्यं हारिद्रुमतं गौतमं
>> गोत्रत एत्य गत्वोवाच
>> ब्रह्मचर्यं भगवति पूजावति त्वयि वत्स्याम्यत उपेयामुपगच्छेयं शिष्यतया
>> भगवन्तमित्युक्तवन्तं तं होवाच
>> गौतमः ।
>> किङ्गोत्रो नु सोम्यासीति विज्ञातकुलगोत्रः शिष्य उपनेतव्य इति पृष्टः
>> प्रत्याह सत्यकामः ।
>> स होवाच नाहमेतद्वेद भो यद्गोत्रोऽहमस्मि ।
>> किं त्वपृच्छं पृष्टवानस्मि मातरम् ।
>> सा मया पृष्टा मां प्रत्यब्रवीन्माता ।
>> बह्वहं चरन्तीत्यादि पूर्ववत् ।
>> तस्या अहं वचः स्मरामि सोऽहं सत्यकामो जाबालोऽस्मि भो इति ॥३ ।। , ।। ४ ॥
> satyakAma having approached hAridrumata, the son of haridrumata, gautama,
> said 'I wish to take up brahmachArya bhagavAn', i.e. to live with you as a
> student. Having spoken thus gautama said 'which is your gotra dear child'
> in order to ascertain the family gotra for giving upanayana to the
> pupil[12] Having been asked thus satyakAma replied 'I don't know sir' etc.
> [12] This has been a part of the upanayana ritual in ancient times, in
> medieval times and in 2015 when my son Nilagriva approached his acharya
> (our family purohit not me) carrying samidha and was asked what his gotra
> was.
> All commentaries are interpretations (and btw have you noticed no other
> vedantic sampradaya believes this slander about jabAlA?) but from the above
> we can clearly see that contrary to your scurrilous assertion,
> Shankaracharya has not only not "twisted" the meaning but provided the most
> plausible explanation.
> Now you may not like the implications of what the shruti is saying but
> that's your problem no one elses.  Wishful thinking is going to change the
> truth.
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list