The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c5.s3.t2.9

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.