Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c5.s3.t2: 2. Exclusion of the Çûdra's

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c5.s3.t2

Language
English

2. Exclusion of the Çûdra's

c5.s3.t2.1

At first sight it may appear strange considering the principle of the Vedânta, that the Çûdra's are shut out from the path of salvation. Of course birth in a particular caste is not a matter of chance, but the necessary consequence of conduct and works in a former existence; but, as the Vedânta makes no difference between the three higher castes, it should have been a logical consequence of its views (first however drawn by Buddhism), to admit the Çûdra too; for he also has a soul, he also is Brahman, and there is no conceivable reason why he also should not become conscious of this, and thus partake of the saving knowledge, especially as it is recognised that he is in need of it (p. 315, 11. 317, 3), and further the objector's argument of the Çûdra's qualification for knowledge (p. 315, 11) is not contested from a worldly point of view (p. 317, 4), as also his right, admitted by the Smṛiti, to participate in the hearing of the Itihâsa's and Purâṇa's (the epic and mythological poems) is not denied (p. 322, 14).

c5.s3.t2.2

But the same accommodation to national prejudices which determines the philosophers of the Vedânta to derive all their knowledge, even by the most tortuous procedure from the Veda, makes it also impossible for them to admit the Ṣûdra; for a condition precedent to the study of the Vedânta, is the study of the Veda and a knowledge of its contents (p. 316, 9), for this again, the Upanayanam (initiation by a teacher), to which the Ṣûdra cannot attain (p. 317, 2, 320, 6), as the law (smṛiti) further forbids the reading aloud of the Veda, even in the presence of a Ṣûdra (p. 322, 2. 6).

c5.s3.t2.3

With this is connected the discussion of certain cases occurring in the Veda itself, where a doctrine is apparently imparted to a Ṣûdra, or man of doubtful caste.

c5.s3.t2.4

The first is that of the Saṃvarga-vidyâ, a theory (reminding one of Anaximenes) of Vâyu (wind) and Prâṇa (breath) as "saṃvargâḥ" (absorbers), on the one hand, of the elements, on the other, of the life-organs, which Chând. 4, 1—3 Raikva imparts to Jânaṣruti, even after he has previously called him a Ṣûdra.³⁷

c5.s3.t2.5

³⁷ The wording of this legend, which shows in very drastic fashion that the knower of Brahman, be he ever so wretched, stands higher than the richest and best who does not know it, is as follows (Chând. 4, 1-2): "Jânaṣruti, the grandson [of Janaṣruta] was a dispenser, giving "much, cooking much. He had houses of rest built on all sides, that "men from all parts might eat with him. Once geese [or flamingoes] "flew past in the night. Then spoke one goose to the other: Ha there! "dim-eyed, dim-eyed [seest thou not] the splendour of Jânuṣruti the "grandson is extended like the heaven; approach it not, burn not thyself.'— "To her the other said: 'Who is he of whom thou speakest, as though "he were Raikva with the car!'—'What is this—of Raikva with the "car?'—'As [at dice] to him who has won with the kṛita [the highest] "throw [or perhaps vijitâya from vij, cf. Rigv. I, 92, 10 vijah] the lower "throws are also counted with it, so to him [Raikva] comes home all "the good the creatures do; and he who knows what he knows, for him "also is this true.'—This Jânaṣruti the grandson over-heard. As soon "as he rose, he spoke to his steward [who praised him in the way the

c5.s3.t2.6

On the other side, Çañkara reminds us firstly that a single case does not make a rule (p. 317, 9), and that what was right in the case of the Samvarga-vidyâ need not therefore be transferred to all other things (p. 318, 1); but after this both Sûtram and scholion (315, 6. 318, 10) affirm that "Çûdra" in the foregoing case is not to be taken in its tra-

c5.s3.t2.7

Vaitâlika's were afterwards wont to do]: 'Thou speakest [of me] as if I were Raikva with the car.'—'What is this—of Raikva with the car?'—'As to him who has won with the kṛita throw, the lower throws are also counted, so to him comes home all the good the creatures do; and he who knows what he knows, for him also is this true.'—Then went the steward forth to seek him. He came back and said 'I have not found him.'—He [Jânaçruti] spoke to him: 'Go seek him where a Brâhmaṇa [in the full sense, as Bṛih. 3, 5, 1. 3, 8, 10] is to be sought [in solitude, in the forest, on a sandbank, in the river, in a remote place,—as the scholiast explains].'—There sat one under his car, scratching his sores. To him he made obeisance saying: 'Art thou, venerable one, Raikva with the car?'—'I am verily he,' he answered.—The steward returned and said: 'I have found him.'—Then took Jânaçruti the grandson six hundred cows, a golden necklace, and a waggon with mules, and went to him and said: 'Raikva! here are six hundred cows, here is a golden necklace, here is a waggon with mules, teach me, venerable one, the Godhead whom thou worshippest.'—To him answered the other: 'Ha, ha! for a trinket and a yoke, thou Çûdra! keep them for thyself, with thy cows.'—Then took Jânaçruti the grandson again a thousand cows, a golden necklace, a waggon with mules and his daughter; he took them, and went to him and said: 'Raikva! here are a thousand cows, here is a golden necklace, here is a waggon with mules, here is a wife, here also is the village in which thou sittest;—teach me, venerable one!'-Then raised he her face [sunk in shame] and said: 'He has brought these [cows]; through this face alone, Çûdra, thou wouldst have made me speak.'—Those are the [villages] called Raikvaparṇa, in the country of the Mahâvṛisha's, where he dwelt [at his invitation] and he spoke to him."

c5.s3.t2.8

Then follows, in the mouth of Raikva, the Samvargavidyâ, which has, however, not the slightest connection with the foregoing narrative, so that one could substitute for it, quite as suitably, almost any other extract from the Upanishad's. Also the systematising at the beginning, the legend of Kâpeya and Abhipratârin in the middle, with its Trishṭubh verses, and the promise "ya' evam veda" at the conclusion, go to show that here, as so often in the Upanishad's, we have to do with two quite independent passages, originally placed side by side only perhaps because the kṛita throw occurs in both, carelessly united by a later editor, and in later times (e. g. by Çañkara, p. 1006, 7) expressly maintained to be connected with each other.

c5.s3.t2.9

ditional sense (*rûdhârtha*), but in its etymological sense (*avayavârtha*); namely because Jânaçruti from sorrow (*çu-câ*) at the humiliating speech of the goose, had run (*du-drâ-va*) to Raikva, this Rishi, who, through supernatural knowledge, became aware of what happened, and wished to make this evident, called him "*çu-dra*" (!). A subsequent (p. 319—320) direct proof that Jânaçruti was a Kshatriya, must be termed utterly inadequate, so far as it seeks by all kinds of quibbles to make it probable that the Abhipratârin mentioned in the Samvargavidyâ (Chând. 4, 3, 5) was a Kshatriya,—and therefore also Jânaçruti, because he is mentioned in the same Vidyâ (!). It is more arguable, as Çaṅkara insists in this connection, that Jânaçruti must have been a Kshatriya because he had a steward (*kshattar*) (p. 320, 2);—however this may be, the whole zealously prosecuted investigation only proves for us that, for the time of Çaṅkara and also for that of Bâdarâyaṇa, it was by no means held to be self-evident that a man of princely wealth and pomp like Jânaçruti, could not have been a Çûdra, which is interesting from the point of view of the history of culture.

c5.s3.t2.10

A further case is that of the boy Satyakâma, to whom his mother Jabâlâ declares she cannot tell him from what family (*gotram*) he comes, because in her youth she had had to do with too many; with childlike naiveté, Satyakâma (whose name, as M. Müller fittingly observes, means Φιλαλήθης) repeats this to the teacher who asks him concerning his family; the teacher finds that only a Brahman can be so sincere, and imparts the knowledge to him as such.³⁸

c5.s3.t2.11

³⁸ *Chândogya-Upanishad* 4, 4: "Satyakâma, the son of Jabâlâ, said to his mother: 'Venerable one, I would enter as a Brahman student; tell me of what family I am.'—She said to him: 'This I know not, my boy, of what family thou art: in my youth I went about much as a maid; there I got thee; I myself know not of what family thou art; my name is Jabâlâ, and thy name is Satyakâma; so call thyself [instead of after the father] Satyakâma, son of Jabâlâ.'—Then went he to Hâridrumata the Gautama, and said: 'I would enter with thee, venerable one, as Brahmacârin, deign to accept me, venerable one!' He said to him: 'Of what family art thou, dear one?'—He said: 'I know not, oh master, of what family I am. I asked my mother, and she answered

c5.s3.t2.12

In this story Bâdarâyaṇa (p. 321, 5) and Çaṅkara (p. 321, 6) find a confirmation of the rule excluding the Ҫûdra, because Satyakâma is admitted only "after it is decided that he cannot be Ҫûdra because he spoke the truth" (! —satya-vacanena Ҫûdratva-abhâve nirddhârite,)—but we might rather conclude from it that in ancient times liberality was greater, and that there was a disposition to let the question of Brahmanhood by birth alone, where a Brahmanhood of heart and mind existed.³⁹

c5.s3.t2.13

³⁹ Cf. for this especially the Upanishad translated in Anquetil Duperron II, 372-377 under the name of "Tschhakli" (according to Stenzler's view = Chûgaleya) and Weber's analysis of it, Ind. Stud. IX, 42-46.

c5.s3.t2.14

However this may be, for our authors, the Ҫûdra, so long as he has not been raised on the path of transmigration to a higher caste,⁴⁰ remains entirely excluded from all share in the teaching of salvation. On the other hand the boundary of admission, which is so ungenerously narrowed below, is very generously widened above, so that not only all men of the three Aryan castes, but also the Gods, and the departed Rishis, are called to the study of the saving Brahmavidyâ.

c5.s3.t2.15

⁴⁰ Chând. 5, 10, 7; Âpastamba-dharmasûtra 2, 5, 11, 10; Manu 10, 65.—In our work this one hope for the Ҫûdra so severely dismissed is, peculiarly enough, nowhere directly proclaimed; implicitly it is contained in the much used passage, Chând. 5, 10, 7, as also in the Smṛiti passage, Bhag. G. 6, 45, quoted p. 1045, 7.

c5.s3.t2.16

"me: 'in my youth I went about much as a maid; there I got thee; I myself know not of what family thou art; my name is Jabâlâ, and thy name is Satyakâma;' so am I called Satyakâma, the son of Jabâlâ, oh master.'—He said to him: 'only a Brahman can speak so frankly; bring the fuel, dear one [that is necessary to the ceremony], I will take thee because thou hast not departed from the truth.'"

c5.s3.t2.17

In the continuation (Chând. 4, 5-9) Satyakâma while he is keeping cows, is first taught concerning the four-fold feet of Brahman (4 cardinal points, 4 parts of the world, 4 sources of light, 4 organs of life), in order, by the bull, the fire, the goose and the diver, until he also receives the teacher's doctrine which "brings furthest." In the following section (Chând. 4, 10-15) Satyakâma is in his turn teacher of Upakosala, in whose case the supernatural teachings (like the miracles of Elija in the case of Elisha) are repeated.

Linked texts (3)