History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c95.359
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c95.359
- Language
- English
v7.c95.359.1
on p. 64 he speaks of Blavatsky, Mrs. Besant, Sinnett and Leadbeater as "proved charlatans" and on p. 95 he writes about Mrs. Besant's entry into Politics as "these later metamorphoses of the megalomaniac Mrs. Besant". It appears to the present writer that his study of original Sanskrit works is not deep and that he commits serious mistakes in the small portion of his work that he devotes to the ancient Indian view of the doctrine of re-incarnation. His wrong interpretation of Manu VI. 63 (p. 10 of his book) has been pointed out (on p. 1565). Some more cases of mistakes may be cited here. On p 11 of his book he relies on Thibaut for the statement that there is nothing in the sūtras (the Vedānta-sūtras) to warrant the main doctrine of Śaṅkara about two Vidyās, the higher (*parā*) and the lower (*aparā*), which respectively lead to the higher (para) *brahma* and the lower (apara) *brahma*. If he had carefully read only a few of the eleven principal Upaniṣads (the Īśāvāsya, Kena, Katha, Muṇḍaka, Praśna) he would have found for himself that Thibaut is not a trustworthy guide in all cases The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (I. 1. 4-5) speaks of two vidyās, parā and aparā 'dve vidye veditavye parā ca, aparā ca, atha parā yayā tadakṣaram adhigamyate' and this Muṇḍaka text is treated as the basis of Vedāntasūtra I. 2. 21-23 by Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja. The Praśna Upaniṣad 2 states both *para* and apara *brahma* 'etadvai Satyakāma param cāparam ca brahma yad-oṁkāraḥ". On pp.
v7.c95.359.2
21, 121, 146 he alleges that the words "yadahareva virajet tadahareva pravrajet" (a man should become a sannyāsin the very day on which he feels disgust for this worldly life) are a dictum or saying of Śaṅkara. But this text is taken from the Jābālopaniṣad 4. The whole passage of the Jābālopaniṣad 4 on the āśramas is quoted by Śaṅkara on Vedāntasūtra III. 4. 20 and Śaṅkara calls it Jābālaśruti. On p 22 Mr. Sanjana quotes Bhagavadgītā (IX. 32, 'mām hi pārtha vyapāśritya yepi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ, striyo vaiśyās-tathā śudrās-tepi yānti parām gatim) and holds that women, vaiśyas and śūdras are declared to be included under 'pāpayonayaḥ' (of evil or sinful birth). This is quite wrong. A Vaiśya from very ancient times belonged to the three higher classes and in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad V. 10. 7, it is expressly stated that Vaiśyayoni is of good birth (those whose conduct has been good will quickly attain some good birth, the birth of a brāhmaṇa or of a kṣatriya or of a vaiśya, but those whose conduct has been evil will attain an evil birth, the birth of a dog or a hog or a cāṇḍāla'. So vaiśya's was good birth in Chān. Upanisad. Women of the higher classes could not study the Veda in medieval times but women of the three higher classes co-operated with their husbands in all religious rites (including Vedic sacrifices). Therefore, the Gītā first mentions the worst case viz.
v7.c95.359.3
that of Cāṇḍālas and affirms that even Cāṇḍālas (who belonged to the lowest class) would attain the highest goal if they surrendered themselves as devotees to God and then adds three more classes of people viz. women, vaiśyas and śūdras. A Śūdra was never among untouchables; on the contrary, early Smṛtis like Manu VI. 253, Yājñavalkya I. 166, Parāśara XI. 19 provide that a brāhmaṇa could take food at the house of a śūdra provided the latter was born of his slave woman or cultivated the brāhmaṇa's fields on the rent of half share of crops or was the friend of his family or tended his cattle or was his barber. In medieval times (after the 5th or 6th century A D.), however, the caste system became more rigid but even up to the 12th century A.D. a brāhmaṇa could take food at a śūdra's house in extreme calamity (vide History of Dharmaśāstra, vol. III. pp. 952–53). Thereafter this was forbidden and was included among Kalivarjya acts. The vaiśyas are probably equated with women and śūdras because in their pursuit of wealth they never cared to study the Veda and Upanisads. Other passages of Mr. Sanjana's work are not cited for criticism for reasons of space.