Sadhana

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Wed, 6 May 1998, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

> There is nothing fanciful about the translation. Prof. Grimes was
> telling nothing about vedAdhikara here.

But the text he claims to be translating most emphatically does touch on
this subject.  And what was all that stuff about viprata and female rishis
in aid of then?

> In fact, as Prof. Grimes has
> translated, it's much more difficult to be born with the qualities he
> has ennumerated than a mere brahmin by birth.

And it is more difficult to be born a mere Brahman  (call me a pedant if
you will but I don't wish to perpetuate a silly English mispronounciation.)
than it is to be born another type of human being which is harder than
being born a lesser creature and so on.  The point is the text establishes
a definite hierarchy which it seems to me Prof. Grimes seems to me to be
uncomfortable with.  Which in this case makes for a bad translation.

> Being born a brahmin means
> NOTHING.

So I wonder why the jagadgurus are always Brahmans and some of the
Dashanami orders only accept Brahmans as members?

> The kind of atrocities they did in the last two centuries is
> nothing short of nauseating. I won't go into that stuff here.

Hmm... for the past couple of hundred years the Vyas's have been teachers
and petty bureaucrats.  About the most atrocious thing they ever did was
to fail someone in algebra.  If something in _your_ past troubles your
conscience that's your problem.  Mine's clear.

> Hoowever,
> sitting as you are in NJ writing software, you are far from being a
> brahmin. You are not even following your dharma. By the very smRiti-s
> you quote you are not.
>

Uh I don't think so.  Care to justify those remarks.

> >Let me go to a short length then.  Brahman is known through comprehension
> >of Shruti (Cf. Brahmasutra I.1.3) Only the male dwija and amongst them the
> >Brahmans are eligible to study the Vedas.  Therefore only they are
> >eligible to know Brahman.
> >
> >And that btw is _one_ orthodox view.
>
> You can have any view you please. That doesn't mean anything.

It means that the people who made those arguments were not "blindly
dogmatically parroting" as the good doctor put it.  Their reasoning is a
natural outcome of their worldview.

And I think I made it clear this is _one_ of _several_ views on the
subject that can be called "orthodox".  I didn't actually come out and say
this is the view I prefered.  (the answer to that question can be found in
the archives if you care to look.)  If you wish to make any progress you
need to learn a little objectivity.

>
> Q: As some people are not brahmins, they do not have the opportunity to
> attain moxa. Some raise an objection to this effect. Are they justified?
>
> A: Whoever said that only he with upanayana can get GYAna? Vidura was a
> great soul. He was not a dvija. That veda should not be studied does not
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This by the way settles the adhikara question.

> mean that one cannot follow the path to moxa. We can find the essence of
> upanishhad-s in texts like yoga vashishhTha and vichAra sAgara. All can
> study such works and certainly acquire GYAna. EVERYONE is competent to
> get GYAna. Sha.nkara bhagavatpAdAL has said this conclusively.
>
> [Excerpts from The _JAGATGURU_ replies, H.H. Sri aAbhinava VidyAtIrtha
> MahAsvAmigaL]
>

This is another orthodox view unrelated to any point I'm trying to make.

> I promised myself that I won't get into acrimonious arguments any more.
> At the risk of foregoing that let me state the facts. As I mentioned
> before, fairy tales told by anyone in your extended family does not
> qualify as vedAnta.

Or college professors or Internet posters :-)

> It is clear that you have absoloutely no grounding
> in vedAnta whatsoever.
>

On the contrary as Dr. Grimes also acknowledges the meaning of the shloka
I am defending is the traditional one.

> I am rather busy and don't intend replying to stuff like what you wrote
> anymore.

It's for the best.  You didn't really understanding.

> The reply was just to request Prof. Grimes to keep posting.

So who's telling him to stop posting?  I'm telling him to translate
better!

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>