Forums Chat Annouce Calender Remote

Advaita and caste - (was Re: The Theism of the Upanishads)

At the risk of restarting a closed discussion, I am posting this article.  
It was ready at least two weeks ago, but posting got delayed due to a  
variety of reasons.  


My final follow-up on this thread.  

I -	In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to 
        dismiss Sankara's authorship of slokas like Dakshinamoorthy 
        ashtaka, as accepted by tradition. 
Mani -  There is wide scholarly dispute regarding the authorship of the 
	Dakshinamurthy Stotram, as well as its commentary the Manasollasa.
	Any critical work on Suresvara will tell you the same.  It is not
        as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

Well, some of this scholarly dispute begins by assuming that Sankara  
didn't compose any hymns and ends up concluding that he didn't. While one  
may agree that a sloka like the Bhaja Govindam is probably foisted on  
Sankara, the case with other such disputes is not decided by any means.  
Wide ranging evidence is presented by both sides of such a debate, and the  
jury is still out on the issue, as it were. Also it has been pointed out  
that the hymns popularly believed to be Sankara's are addressed to a  
different audience as compared to his scholarly works like the  
commentaries on the Upanishads. It is not beyond the range of human  
possibility for the same person to write popular hymns and also highly  
technical and scholarly tomes. The other possibility is that heads of  
Advaita mathas are also known as Sankaracharyas and there might be a  
genuine mix-up between the writings of these later Sankaracharyas and  
those of the author of the Bhashyas. 

Also, it may not be clear-cut, but that is besides the point. Sankara the  
composer of the Brahmasutra Bhashya (by definition the Sankara one is  
interested in here) may not have composed the Dakshinamoorthy stotram, but  
the important point to note is that the message of this hymn is Advaita.  
The Advaita tradition in India accepts this hymn as Sankara's and that  
should suffice from the point of view of the Vedanta schools in India and  
for this discussion. 

I -  Sankara emerges as a philosopher beyond such sectarian 
     considerations, both in his writings and the traditional  
     accounts of his life. 
Mani - This is true to an extent, although his preference for Brahmins and
       Brahminism (once again, leaving the spurious Manisa-pancakam aside)
       can be viewed as rigid sectarianism (and is perhaps far worse).

With all due courtesy, Mani, we were discussing sectarianism, not  
casteism. They are two completely orthogonal issues. Pretty nice, to jump  
on to the casteism bandwagon!

Anyway, this is a serious charge, more so for us today. Therefore it  
merits detailed rebuttal. First let us look at what "Brahminism" is,  
before one examines Sankara's alleged preference for Brahmins. 

Brahminism, like the term Hinduism, means different things to different  
people. The word Brahmin itself however is more easily grasped.  
Essentially the definition is circular - one who is born a Brahmin is a  
Brahmin. A sociologist today would probably look at the various Sankara  
mathas, the Dvaita mathas at Udipi and other places, and the Srivaishnava  
mathas in addition to famous temples like Kashi, Madurai and Tirupati, to  
gather data on "Brahminism".  

This kind of "Brahminism" is today's fact - a fact that came into being  
recently. To talk of Sankara's preference or otherwise for Brahmins, one  
must ask a few important questions first. What was "Brahminism" in  
Sankara's time itself? And what are Sankara's own words regarding this? 

Before Sankara's time, (7th cent. A. D.), Buddhism was widely prevalent  
among the scholarly community. About 50 years or so before Sankara,  
Kumarila Bhatta, Prabhakara and Mandana Misra had firmly established the  
pUrva mImAmSA as the major philosophy of Brahminism. By pUrva mImAmSA is  
meant the philosophy that holds that the karmakAnDa of the Vedas is  
supreme, and that all the Vedas are mainly with a view to provide  
injunctions to man. Under this thought, the injunction is to perform Vedic  
karmas, ranging from the simple nityakarmAs to the elaborate nimitta and  
kAmya karmAs like putrakameshti or aSwamedha. Essentially this translates  
as ritualism - the ritualism is for its own sake. The pUrva mImAmSA went  
so far as to say that one need not worry about the existence or otherwise  
of  Vedic gods; mere performance of Vedic rituals would yield moksha, the  
fourth purushArtha.  

A little thought will indicate that performance of such sacrificial  
rituals requires wealth, social status as a learned Brahmin or a powerful  
Kshatriya king, and other such requisites. Social status as a learned  
Brahmin is required because otherwise people would not attend the  
sacrifice and the sacrifice would not yield its expected fruit. Such was  
the orthodox Brahminism of the 7th century, and it worked perfectly well  
for some time. Kings were able to assert their royal authority and collect  
much needed revenue through this device, smart Brahmins were able to amass  
wealth and influence affairs of state, while at the same time aserting  
that their moksha is assured. What about the general populace, mostly  
vaiSyas and more importantly the poor SUdras? The answer of this orthodox  
Brahminism was that the vaiSyA gained liberation through their king's  
performance of the major rituals and as for the SUdra, he had no other go  
but to gain rebirth in a higher caste in order to achieve liberation. Let  
us see what Sankara himself has to say about this. 

I shall not quote the mAnIshA panchakam here, which Mani has already  
dismissed as spurious. I shall return to it later though. Let us quote  
only from the BrahmasUtra bhAshya and the bhAshya on the BrihadAraNyaka  

Sankara's first answer to the orthodox Brahmin of his day is that all his  
ritualism will get him nowhere but to endless rebirth. Performance of  
ritual is based on the very acceptance of the duality that needs to be  
annihilated. Nothing really good can be gained out of it. 

Also, performance of ritual required money. The Br. Ar. upanishad tells us  
"amrtatvasya nASAsti vittena" - wealth is not going to secure liberation.  
Now, it is obvious that mere possession of wealth was not going to  
liberate. Sankara's argument is this - because the upanishad has nothing  
to gain by stating the obvious, what it means by wealth is really the  
performance of rituals for which the amassed wealth is used - this is what  
the upanishad really wants to convey.  Assuredly, this was not music to  
the ears of the orthodox Brahmin of his day. Acquisition of wealth is  
always pleasant to any man. Performance of rituals justified this in the  
minds of the Brahmin. To be told that this is of no use for liberation  
must have definitely rankled the wealthy, influential and orthodox Brahmin  
of the 7th century. 

More importantly, Sankara does not reject ritualism by rejecting the  
Vedas, unlike the Buddhist or the Jain. He rejects ritualism by accepting  
the Vedas, and by pointing out that the karmakANDa is meant for one  
audience and the jnanakANDa to another totally different audience. The  
karmakANDa addresses itself to people whose thinking is limited to worldly  
affairs, like obtaining a son, or celebrating kingship. The jnanakANDa on  
the other hand is addressed to the mumukshu, the one who seeks liberation,  
by definition an other-worldly good. Thus in addition to telling the  
orthodox Brahmin of his day that ritualism will get him nowhere, Sankara  
is really telling him that the karmakANDa that he thinks to be supreme is  
really not so supreme at all. Again this was not going to endear Sankara  
and his philosophy to the prevalent Brahminism of his day. Sankara's  
attitude towards ritual is usually cited as yet another indication of a  
general "Buddhist influence" - you cannot at the same time quite  
arbitrarily claim that he had a decided preference for Brahmins also.

Typically, the Advaita position is that even after countless performances  
of sacrifices or other meritorious deeds, without the knowledge of the  
Unity of Atman, there is no liberation. Conversely, the only truly  
liberating thing which is itself liberation, is Brahman-knowledge. Now who  
is qualified for gaining such knowledge? Does Sankara say one needs to be  
born a Brahmin in order to gain such knowledge? Does he say the SUdra has  
no other go but to be reborn in a higher caste before he can gain such  
knowledge? No sir. In his BrahmasUtra bhAshya, in the very first chapter,  
he says the SUdra though not traditionally entitled to the sacred thread  
or study of the Vedas, can also definitely gain such knowledge through  
other means. Read the previous sentence again - it means that a SUdra does  
not have to take rebirth in a higher caste for liberation, he can acheive  
Brahman-knowledge rightaway! Orthodox Brahminical casteism, right? 

Herein lies the seed for the true emancipation of man from caste. The  
caste in which one is born is just an incidental. It is yet another  
construct of superimposition. The Atman has no caste. One can be born a  
Brahmin and not gain Brahman-knowledge at all. One can be born a SUdra at  
the other end of the social status scale and gain Brahman knowledge. In  
the Br. Ar. upanishad bhAshya Sankara again points out that no  
qualification of caste is necessary for liberation. In fact, performance  
of rituals which the orthodox Brahmin so loves even till today, can be a  
positve hindrance to gaining Brahman knowledge! Real preference for  
Brahminism, wouldn't you say? 

Coming to samnyAsa. Sankara goes against the established orthodoxy of his  
time and says that one doesn't need to go through the middle two ASramas  
before samnyAsa. The orthodox Brahmin quotes scripture and says  
"brahmachAryam samApya grhI bhavet, grhAdvanI bhUtvA pravrajet" - one  
should become a householder after completing Brahmacharya, and then later  
beome a samnyAsi. Sankara quotes the scripture "brahmachAryAdeva  
pravrajet, grhAdvA vanAdvA yadahareva virajet tadahareva pravrajet" -  
whether from the ASramas of Brahmacharya or grhastha or vAnaprastha, the  
moment one gets vairAgya, one should take up samnyAsa. Sankara himself  
became a samnyAsi without going through marriage and the life of a  
householder. In his time, this was not at all acceptable to orthodox  
Brahminism. As late as the 14th century A. D. Vidyaranya draws attention  
to this in his Sankara-dig-vijaya. So much for Sankara's preference for  
the Brahminism of his day.  

Again, is any caste qualification necessary to become a sannyAsi? No. In  
fact, Sankara says of the parivrAjaka (the wandering monk) "katham  
varNASrami bhavet?" - how can a monk be bound by varNa and ASrama? A monk  
is totally outside the caste system. Caste is another mAyA-like thing of  
this world that he gets liberated from. Pretty comforting to the Brahmin,  

In keeping with such an attitude towards caste, there are thousands of  
daSanAmi sannyAsis in India and the rest of the world who are not Brahmins  
by birth. They are by no means "less" in any way than the samnyAsis who  
were originally Brahmin. Famous examples in recent times are Paramahamsa  
Yogananda and Swami ChinmayAnanda. The Saiva monks of the Tamil  
sampradAyas, who are technically SUdra by birth are also highly regarded  
by the Sankarite monks of south India.   

Every society structures itself one way or the other. If not caste, it is  
class. If not class, it is race or something else. Maybe Sankara did not  
actively try to elevate lower castes the way Ramanuja tried to do. But  
then one can hardly expect Sankara who lived only 32 years (to be fair,  
subtract the years of his infancy and studies) to have eradicated caste.  
His work in such a short lifetime was rightly preoccupied with philosophy  
rather than activist social reform. As it is, his views were sufficiently  
radical in his time for the then Brahmin orthodoxy to have hated him. Part  
of Sankara's genius lies in pointing out to such orthodoxy that his own  
views were based on the same scriptures that the orthodox Brahmin upheld.  
Going by these views of his, Max Weber, the famous sociologist, concludes  
that Sankara must have been a "half-breed" by birth! 

That said, I turn to the 'spurious' hymn mAnIshA panchakam. This is  
related to the popular episode in Sankara's life when he met a chandala on  
the river ghats. Whether the episode is real or not, whether the hymn was  
actually composed by Sankara or not, in the minds of people it forms part  
of the personality that he was. Not just by popular mention, but genuine  
Advaitins like the Sankaracharyas of today accept this episode of their  
main guru's life. The hymn is completely in keeping with the spirit of  
Advaita. The chandala episode can be traced back at least to the time of  
Vidyaranya when caste held mighty sway. Vidyaranya had nothing to gain by  
recounting such a story - that Sankara recognized a chandala as a jnAnI -  
as tradition. As it turns out, I don't need to use this hymn to say  
anything about Sankara's own views about caste. His bhAshyas on the  
Upanishads and the Brahma sUtras suffice. 


Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.