[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Issues in mImAmSA, advaita, dvaita.
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Issues in mImAmSA, advaita, dvaita.
-
From: vidya@cco.caltech.edu (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)
-
Date: 27 Jun 1995 06:37:24 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
From news@nntp-server.caltech.edu Tue Jun 27 02: 25:57 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
-
References: <3smsj4$55p@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
In article <3smsj4$55p@babbage.ece.uc.edu> Mani Varadarajan
<mani@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> writes:
>
>
Thanks Mani, for elaborating on Ramanuja's view of the karma and the jnAna
kANDas. I would like to clarify Sankara's position about the uselessness
or otherwise of karmas. All Vedic karma is not dismissed as absolutely
useless. Sankara only denies the view that karma is necessary for moksha.
For one who is seeking one of the other purushArthas, Vedic karma is still
the superior route, according to orthodox advaitins. What it means,
practically, is that no sacrifices are enjoined on the sannyasi.
Essentially, Sankara's view is that following the karmakANDa may well be a
sufficient condition for seeking moksha, but it is not necessary. That is
why he specifies the sAdhana catushTaya, giving special importance to
mumukshutva. It is possible for one to be an orthodox brAhmaNa and follow
all the vidhis enjoined by the karmakANDa, and still not be a mumukshu. On
the other hand, it is possible that one is born a SUdra, not study the
Veda at all, and still be a mumukshu.
>
> > Within the mImAmSa sUtras itself, Badarayana
> > disagrees with Jaimini about who is entitled to perform Vedic rituals.
> > Jaimini thinks only dvijas are so entitled, which is the traditional
> > position, whereas Badarayana thinks all men and women, the whole
genus, is
> > entitled - a fairly revolutionary position.
>
> Can you specify where this difference of opinion occurs? Though
> I have not studied the Karma-mImAmsa Sutras, I find it hard to
> believe that BAdarAyaNa would hold that all men and women are
> entitled to perform the Vedic ritual,
In the mImAmSa sUtras, the question of SUdras and sacrifice is discussed
in detail. sUtra I.3.27 outlines the view of Badari - nimittArtena
bAdaristasmAtsarvAdhikAram syAt. Thus according to Badari, all are
entitled to it - sarvAdhikAram. In sUtras VI.1.4-8, the topic discussed
is, "Only human beings are entitled to perform sacrifice". The
pUrvapakshin argues that sacrificial acts are for obtaining specific
results, hence all living beings are entitled to acts enjoined in
scripture. It is then pointed out that only such intelligent agents as
have the ability to carry out all the details of the act can be considered
to be entitled to the sacrificial act. At this point, Badarayana says
(VI.1.6), "Really, the whole human genus is entitled. There is no ground
for distinction, the characteristic of the genus being equally present in
all, so even the woman must be regarded as so entitled." Later, in sUtras
VI.1.25-27, the topic of the SUdra is again brought up. In VI.1.25,
Badarayana objects saying all four castes are entitled, relying on the
same argument as before - there is no distinction. In VI.1.26, Atreya's
view is stated as correct, that being that since only dvijas are mentioned
in connection with the installation of the fires, SUdras cannot possibly
be entitled to the sacrifice. VI.1.27 again mentions Badari's objection,
holding that the fourth varNa is also entitled. The commentators generally
agree with Atreya and disagree with Badari and Badarayana. (Re: GanganAtha
Jha's translation of SAbarabhAshya)
The whole dispute seems to rest on two conflicting inferences to be drawn
from different sections of the Veda. In one place in the Satapatha
Brahmana, the way the yajamAna is to be addressed is described, and this
includes an address for the SUdra also. However, all Vedic references to
the three fires only mention the three upper varNas, leaving out the
SUdra. The difference of opinion in this debate is also reflected in the
BhAradvAja Srauta Sutra, when it says - vidyate chaturthasya
varNasyAgnyAdheyamityeke na vidyata ityaparam V.2.8 - some hold that the
fourth varNa is also entitled to maintain the three fires.
It is interesting to see that some Vedic teachers in ancient times
supported the idea of SUdras performing Vedic sacrifices. Clearly, if a
yajamAna could be a SUdra, at the time of the Satapatha BrAhmaNa, it
indicates something. On the other hand, all later interpreters try to
explain away this reference to the SUdra as meaning rathakAra - a son of a
kshatriya father and SUdra mother. This seems far-fetched, especially
given the views of some ancient teachers about SUdras performing
sacrifices. For some interesting information about this topic from the
dharmaSAstra literature, read Mm. P. V. Kane's monumental work "History of
DharmaSAstra".
> especially since the
> apaSudrAdhikaraNa of the Brahma-sutras (I.iii.33) quite clearly
> says that sudras are denied the chance for Brahma-vidya due to
> their lack of samskaaras. Since these very same samskaaras
> (such as yajnopavitam) entitle one to perform Vedic rituals,
> I do not see how BAdarAyaNa can come this conclusion. Or perhaps
> this lends credence to the belief that the apaSudrAdhikaraNa
> is a wholesale interpolation?
I don't know, but I wouldn't think so. Granted, Badarayana thinks the
SUdra can perform Vedic sacrifices. But the SUdra is still not considered
a dvija. Quite possibly, the actual event of a SUdra performing a
sacrifice would be achieved by means of a compromise, such as the purohita
reciting the mantras, with the yajamAna being a silent spectator for the
most part. The purohita would always be a brAhmaNa, so that nothing is
threatened. Such compromises are, in fact, mentioned in some of the
dharmasUtras. Manusmrti, while it denies any samskAra to the SUdra in some
places, seems to approve of almost every samskAra except yajnopavItam.
Sankara interprets this sUtra to mean that while the SUdra is denied the
right to study the Veda, he can still attain moksha by other means, such
as samskAras accumulated in previous births. Vidura and DharmavyAdha from
the Mahabharata are quoted as examples. Birth as a SUdra is certainly no
impediment to moksha.
The subtle change in views also probably represents a historical hardening
of what began as a lenient view in one Vedic school. In the mImAmSa
sUtras, Badari allows the fourth varNa to even maintain the sacred fires,
while Badarayana seems more ambivalent, probably because of opposition
from other contemporaries. (I am assuming Badarayana is later than
Badari.) He only allows that SUdras and women are entitled to the
sacrifice. He does not specifically say that they are also entitled to
study the Vedas, or to maintain the fires. The purohita would probably do
all this on their behalf. Maybe the 19th-century situation, where some
groups of brAhmaNas were considered to be of lowly status because they
were purohitas to SUdras, had its origins in such compromises as solutions
to this debate. Badarayana also probably subscribes to a view that would
place BrahmavidyA above vaidika karma. Thus, even if the SUdra is entitled
to the sacrifice in his eyes, quite possibly, he still hesitates to admit
the SUdra to BrahmavidyA.
>
> Yours,
> Mani
Vidya
