[Advaita-l] Bh.Gita verse 18.73 - Was Arjuna an 'aparoksha Jnani'? - Part 4

[ravi chandrasekhara]

Pranam to all,

My understanding is the following:

1.Certain anuloma vivahas, especially involving female of the next lower varna result in progeny of the paternal varna.
2.If female is below the next varna, then it is a mixed caste which if both parents are dvijas, so is the mixed caste.
3.If either parent is a shudra, then the mixed caste is like/treated as a shudra and hence no dvija status or veda-adhikara.
4.According to Manu Smriti, a man should marry a woman of same varna then subsequent wives can be of lower varnas.
5.However, the names given for progeny of anuloma vivahas, do not specify whether the wife of lower varna is a subsequent wife or primary and only wife.
6.Progeny of niyoga relationships (like the way Pandu was conceived) belong to the mother's husband's caste not the biological father.  FYI, niyoga is banned in Kali yuga.
7.The birth of veda Vyasa was extraordinary and hence varna status is accorded differently.  BTW, Satavati was a Kshatriya raised by fisherman couple (Shudra or Panchama ?)

Ravi Chandrasekhara

--- On Tue, 7/27/10, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Bh.Gita verse 18.73 - Was Arjuna an 'aparoksha Jnani'? - Part 4
> To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 7:00 AM
> Dear Jaldharji,
>  
> Shri Venkatesh Murthyji had conveniently ignored my mail,
> where I showed that Vidura's biological father was none
> other thann Vedavyasa, who also had low-born mother. How can
> one call Vidura a non-dvija?
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Sunil k. Bhattacharjya
> 
> --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Bh.Gita verse 18.73 - Was Arjuna
> an 'aparoksha Jnani'? - Part 4
> To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:36 PM
> 
> 
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Venkatesh Murthy wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Jaldhar H. Vyas
> > 
> > This is not correct.  Adi Sankara said Vidura and
> Dharmavyadha had
> > good samskaras from previous janma.
> > the result of this was jnana in
> > the non dvija janma.
> 
> The point is whatever they did or did not do in previous
> janmas, they got jnana in their shudra janmas.  And
> Shankaracharya has no problem with stating that.  So why be
> unnecessarily strict about it?
> 
> 
> >  They were exceptions only probably 0.0000001% or
> > less of all people. All non dvijas cannot be like
> them. they are
> > disqualified from learning Brahmavidya
> > 
> 
> Percentages are not relevant.  All that needs to be proved
> is that it is possible (and I think you concede that it is)
> Then we leave it to individual effort and Bhagavans krpa.
> 
> 
> > In the smrutis it is written hot lead should be filled
> in ears of any
> > sudra or lower caste who hears the vedas. How can they
> hear vedanta?
> 
> Leaving aside the hot lead in the ears thing which is
> hyperbole, it is true that they have no adhikara to learn
> Vedas.  But the point you are missing is that
> itihasa-purana _also_ contain Vedanta.  And this is not
> Taiwanese imitation Vedanta, it is the genuine article!
> 
> > It is totally wrong and false propaganda by enemies of
> Vaidika
> > religion.
> > 
> 
> I must admit this is an unusual role to find myself in :-)
> 
> > Adi Sankara said non dvijas cannot get Brahmavidya in
> Brahma sutra
> > 1.3.38 This is correct position.
> 
> No he said they cannot study Vedas to get Brahmavidya. 
> This is not in doubt.
> 
> > A brahmin who does not do sandhyavandana is treated
> like a sudra only. He cannot get Brahmavidya.
> 
> 
> He can't get brahmavidya with sandhyavandana either. 
> Jnana is orthogonal to karma.
> 
> > Adi Sankara did not write nondvija will get moksha
> from non vedanta.
> > You can check BSB. Where did he write  it? He wrote
> only they are
> > eligibile to hear itihasa puranas. The correct point
> is they will be
> > born as  brahmins in their next janma by hearing the
> itihasa puranas.
> > 
> 
> Here are his exact words:
> 
> yeShAM punaH
> pUrvakR^itasaMskaravashAdviduradharmavyAdhaprabhR^itInAM
> GYAnotpattisteShAM na shakyate phalaprAptiH pratiShedhuM
> GYAnasyaikAntikaphalatvAt shrAvayechchaturo varNAn iti
> chetihAsapurANAdhigame chAturvarNyasyAdhikArasmaraNAt |
> 
> "To those in whom as a result of previous good samskaras,
> such as Vidura and Dharmavyadha, jnana arises, the
> acquisition of its fruit cannot be denied since jnana always
> brings about its own fruit.  [The rule] "He should teach
> the four varnas" indicates that all four varnas are
> qualified for the knowledge of itihasa-puranas according to
> smrti."
> 
> >> Advaita Vedanta allows for jivanmukti i.e. mukti
> in this lifetime.  That
> >> mukti is caused by jnAna and jnAna can arise in
> any ashrama or even no
> >> ashrama.  (See brahmasutra 3.4.36 antarA chApi tu
> taddR^iShTe)
> > 
> > No. Adi Sankara wrote this for widowers. They cannot
> do yagas without
> > a wife. But they can do japa and worship the gods. It
> means they can
> > take sanyasa and become eligible for Brahmavidya. this
> is written in
> > 3.4.36. he did not write Gruhasthas and others can
> directly get
> > Brahmavidya without sanyasa. Where did he write it?
> Please check.
> > 
> 
> Widowers are given as an example but to provide for them
> only is not the purpose of this sutra.  ("But also those
> who stand between for it is seen")
> 
> The key passage from the bhashya is:
> 
> antarA chApi tu anAshramitvena vartamAno.api
> vidyAyAmadhikriyate | kuta.h |
> taddR^iShTe.h vAchaknavIprabhR^itInAmevaMbhutAnAmapi
> brahmavitvashrutyupalabdhe.h ||
> 
> "even a person who by not now belonging to an Ashrama
> 'stands between', as it were, is qualified for getting
> brahmavidyA.  Why?  'For it is seen' in the cases of those
> of that type such as raikva and vAchaknavi who became
> brahmavids as shown in shruti."
> 
> Now Raikva was a widower but Vachaknavi was an unmarried
> girl in the court of Videha.  Doesn't that contradict your
> argument?
> 
> > A Gruhastha cannot directly get Brahmavidya.
> 
> This will come as a shock to Maharshi Yajnavalkya who was
> not only a grhastha but had two wives!  Yet he is also
> called a jnani in Shruti and Advaita Vedanta accepts this
> without reservation.  Now it is true that upon
> enlightennment he immediately abandoned worldly life. 
> Jnana and sannyasa are inextricably linked but sometimes the
> sequence is sannyasa -> jnana, other times it is jnana
> -> sannyasa.  Neither invalidates the idea that jnana
> can arise in any ashrama or none.
> 
> -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> 
> 
> 
>       
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>