Sadhana

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Tue, 5 May 1998, john grimes wrote:

> Sadananda wrote
>         kulam pavitram jananii kRitaarthaa
> >        vishvambaraa punya vatiicha tena|
> >        apaara satchit sukha saagaresmin
> >        liinatare brahmani yasya cheta saH|
> >
> >Kulam ( caste? ), the mother and the world itself that gave birth to such a
> >individual are all blessed by the one whose mind has merged into that
> >Brahman which is endless of ocean of bliss.
>
> Kulam is "family" and also means: condensation, solidification, that which
> binds or contracts; whatever has name and form; any unit of manifestation;
> the human body; abode; residence; school; family; world; universe; embodied
> cosmos; all of creation; divine creative energy; power of consciousness

Kulam is modified by pavitram.  i.e. "pure family."  It obviously refers
to family based on birth and not the other senses of the word you mention.

[...]

> Here is my translation of those two verses:
>
> For all things subject to birth, birth in a human body is rare. Even rarer
> to obtain are strength of body and mind. Rarer still is purity. More
> difficult than these is a desire to live a spiritual life. Rarest of all is
> to have an understanding of the scriptures. As for discrimination between
> the Self and the not-self, direct Self-realization, continuous union with
> the Absolute, final and complete liberation are not to be obtained without
> meritorious deeds done in a hundred billion well-lived lives.
>

Well it's a translation but not a very good one.  You are twisting the
words to the utmost to fit your fancies.

These verses are a paraphrase of the anandamimamsa of the
taittiriyopanishad.  It specifically describes a person who is "shrotriya"
and "adhyayaka" (both terms signifying one who is a learned in the Vedas.)
It has always been the case that only a male dvija has been eligible to
learn the Vedas.  There is no reason at all to believe Shankaracharya
believed otherwise.  In fact see the brahmasutrabhasya on I.3.34-38 for
anexample of Him emphatically denying the adhikara of Shudras.

> (Commentary)
> How many myriad things are there in the universe! Think of the billions of
> stars and specks of dust and grains of sand and microbes beyond count.
> Innumerable are the drops of water and leaves on trees and atoms beyond
> count. Of all the entities in the universe, those with a human body are
> very rare! This is not speculation but an obvious objective observation.
> And, what is rare and difficult to obtain is generally considered to be
> precious, valuable.
> The physical body is precious. Why? Ignoring for the moment spiritual
> realization, it is because one has a physical body that one has been able
> to enjoy all the pleasures that have come one's way throughout one's life.
> All of the delicious foods and wonderful sights and relationships, colors
> and fragrances and sounds beyond compare, everything that has been
> experienced was, is, and will be, only because one has a physical body. The
> body is the vehicle by which and through which a person is able to enjoy
> all that one deems enjoyable. Thus, birth in a physical body is rare,
> valuable and precious.
> Even rarer and more difficult to obtain than the physical body is a strong,
> inwardly inspired or awakened (viprata) body and mind. The word "viprata)"
> generally means "the rank or condition of a priest (brahmana)" and thus
> this verse is usually translated as, "more difficult to obtain than a human
> body is to be born as a male member of the priestly caste."

>From the Amarkosha to Patanjali to every single other author you could
mention, vipra has meant a Brahman.  Now it may literally mean something
else but a french fry literally means a fry from France.  So what?

The verse is usually translated that way because that's what it means.

> How un-vedantic

Let me get this straight.  You are accusing the master of Vedanta of
being un-Vedantic!!!

> and tragic that the orthodox have, in a parrot-like fashion, blindly and
> dogmatically declared that the mere act of a male birth in a brahmin family
> is an indispensable prerequisite for Self-realization!

In tarkashastra this is called vitanda.  When you have no logical
objection to an opponent you try and discredit them.  So rather than
trying to figure out why the "orthodox" (a group that apparently includes
scholars who aren't practising advaitins.) take the position they do, you
simply declare them "parrot-like", "blind", and "dogmatic."

> Commentators,
> scholars, and apologists have gone to great lengths in an attempt to
> justify this interpretation. To mention but a few: Women are (declared to
> be) not fit to realize the Self because of their involvement in: domestic
> duties, child-bearing, child-rearing, and/or sense-pleasures; rulers and
> warriors (ksatriya), business people (vaisya), and laborers (shudra) are
> unfit to realize the Self because their activities are directed outwards;
> renunciation (sannyasa), leading to the realization of the Self, is
> reserved for, is the dharma, only of brahmins, and so on.

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.

> However, no
> amount of apologetics can logically rescue such an interpretation of the
> word "viprata)."

Congratulations, you've defeated your straw man.  The orthodox aren't
trying to rescue that interpretation in the first place.  All the things
you mention are at best subsidiary evidence, they are not reasons in
themselves.

> Isn't it clear that what Sankara is doing in this verse is
> describing the stages of self-development?

Yes.  And it is clear that he regarded the male Shrotriya Brahman as being
more developed than any other human being.  Incidentally this kind of a
view was hardly restricted to the "orthodox" schools.  One of the
controversies which split the Jain Shvetambaras and Digambaras was whether
women and laity in general were capable of mukti.

> And in regards to the Self,
> vedantic spiritual practice does not pertain to the physical body, male or
> female. Enquiry and reflection are categorically declared to be the means
> to Self-realization.

Enquiry and reflection _on_the_vedanta_texts_.  Which takes us back to
square one.  Who is entitled to study the vedanta texts?

Thus, the word "viprata)" must be describing as
> qualification, qualities and not gender or caste.

For the traditional Indian qualifications, qualities and caste are
inseperable.  For instance take Shankaracharyas tratment of the story of
Shvetaketu.  He observes that Shvetaketu was not taught until his teacher
was convinced he was a Brahman.  And the fact that he so zealously spoke
the truth "proved" he was a Brahman.  Rather than proving the
egalitarianism of Vedanta as modern liberal apologists would have it, this
shows the centrality of caste to Vedantic thinking.

Vipra means, "stirred;
> quivering; inwardly inspired or excited; wise; learned; a sage or seer." A
> qualified aspirant, a seeker of the Self, must be able to discriminate the
> Real from the unreal; must be able to be detached and dispassionate; must
> be intellectually strong and tranquil; must possess a sharp intellect which
> is able to vigorously reflect and tirelessly and unceasingly meditate on
> the Self. Firmness of determination, steadiness of composure, detachment
> and discipline, and a burning desire to know the inner Self are what are
> required - not merely a male brahmin body.

Of course not merely a male brahman body.  Yet according to the
traditional way of thinking it is that type of body which is most likely
to have the qualities you mention.

> Why, a substantial portion of
> the Vedic hymns themselves were either given by female seers or were
> addressed to females by males. To exclude females from being qualified
> seekers of the Self is to blindly ignore both the subject-matter of Vedanta
> as well as a whole host of knowers such as: Maitreyi, Gargi, Romasa,
> Lopamudr O(a,¯), Apala, Kadru), Visvavra, GhoSa, Juhu, and so on.

Do you think in the 3000+ years of transmission of the Vedas nobody
noticed there were female Rshis?  It is hardly a secret.  Yet one cannot
"blindly ignore" that this fact has not troubled anyone and for all of
recorded history the study of the Vedas have been a male occupation.
According to the Mimamsa shastra a Rshi is mantradrshta.  Someone whereby
we have ended up with a mantra.  Beyond that they have no significance
whatsoever.

There is a related topic brought up in both the Purva Mimamsa and Brahma
sutras.  Are the Gods eligible to know the Vedas?  This may seem like a
bizarre question at first unless you understand what the preoccupations of
the Vedic thinkers were.  Notions of egalitarianism simply didn't occur to
most people anywhere in the world until very recently and even now they
arre hardly universally acknowledged.

Obviously you are a person who is attracted to Vedanta and having
discovered to your chagrin that some of its doctrines leave you out in
the cold it is easy to understand why you might want to rationalize it to
something more agreeable.  However as a scholar you have an obligation to
objectivity and truth.  It would be a shame if you fell short of that
mark.

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

>From  Wed May  6 17:45:02 1998
Message-Id: <WED.6.MAY.1998.174502.0500.>
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 17:45:02 -0500
Reply-To: niche at ameritech.net
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Parisi & Watson <niche at AMERITECH.NET>
Organization: Knitters Niche
Subject: Re: Sadhana
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Chandran, Nanda (NBC) wrote:
>
> >I tried to make clear from the beginning that I cannot approach Vedanta
> >with the attitude that "This is The Truth... how can I best understand
> >it?"
>
> It's quite the same case with me. But when one runs out of alternatives,
> there might come a day when one has to submit to the authority of a
> school and walk the prescribed path and see for oneself. Because as Giri
> said : intellectually knowing 'I'm that' is quite different from
> actually realising it within the depths of one's being. Shankara
> prescribes a certain path and asks you to see for yourself that the
> snake is actually a rope. Again the path itself is not very different
> from paths of schools like say Buddhism, except that the end differs.
> But you can experience it for yourself, where it's Nirguna or Saguna
> Brahman or nothing.
>
> And in a quest not within the bounds of our emprical world, the rules
> differ. As I stated before it might not be that difficult for me to
> submit to Shankara's authority as I'm quite aware of what he stands for
> in my land. But this might not be the same case with you. Infact I'm not
> sure I would submit to the authority of, let's say, Thomas Aquinas, even
> for all our intellectual and spiritual thinking alike, as he still
> represents something alien and something I cannot truly relate with.
> That's why I finally stated that we'd have to leave it to the pursuasive
> power of Truth (which was misinterpreted by John :-( It's just a
> sympathetic observation.
>
>         Because e-mail can be altered electronically,
>         the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed.

I most definitely would not submit to the authority of Thomas Aquinas,
and I was a Catholic at one point in my life!

I can easily accept the idea that the truth of Vedanta can't be had by
reasoning alone, but must come from direct experience. But the venerable
example of the rope and snake shows clearly that experience itself can
also lead to erroneous views. Let's say that in the course of my normal
activities, 'I' have no sense of identification with 'my' body, 'my'
mind, or the entire course of the life of the individual with 'my' name.
Does this mean that 'I' truly would not be annihilated in the most
complete sense if my living body were suddenly destroyed? Obviously not.
Having the experience does not guarantee or necessarily even verify its
meaning. Or to go further, let's say that during meditation I lose all
sense of subject, object, and individual self, and feel that whatever is
left of 'me' has merged with an infinite ocean of bliss consciousness.
Does this vivid experience necessarily mean that all these things have
taken place as 'I' interpret them (presumably after the fact)? Or could
my understanding of an experience that is powerful enough to change my
life be seriously flawed? It seems to me that it could be, particularly
if I have undergone an intense course of study in advance on what the
experience will mean if and when I finally do have it. For these
reasons, I am left unsatisfied by assurances that I will know the truth
once I 'see' for myself. And it is also for these reasons that in a
sense discrimination and critical thinking must be more fundamental than
experience. Our reasoning can deceive us, but so can our experience,
especially when we have indoctrinated ourselves in advance in a certain
way of interpreting it. The experience is one thing, ineffable and
indescribable; the cause, significance, and meaning of the experience is
quite another thing, and it can't be supported only by the experience
itself.

Robert.

>From  Wed May  6 20:05:58 1998
Message-Id: <WED.6.MAY.1998.200558.0400.>
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 20:05:58 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: Sadhana
Comments: To: Advaita-L <advaita-l at tamu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:

>> to obtain are strength of body and mind. Rarer still is purity. More
>> difficult than these is a desire to live a spiritual life. Rarest of all is
>> to have an understanding of the scriptures. As for discrimination between
>> the Self and the not-self, direct Self-realization, continuous union with
>> the Absolute, final and complete liberation are not to be obtained without
>> meritorious deeds done in a hundred billion well-lived lives.

>Well it's a translation but not a very good one.  You are twisting the
>words to the utmost to fit your fancies.

There is nothing fanciful about the translation. Prof. Grimes was
telling nothing about vedAdhikara here. 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. Being born a brahmin means
NOTHING. The kind of atrocities they did in the last two centuries is
nothing short of nauseating. I won't go into that stuff here. 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.

>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.

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
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]

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

I am rather busy and don't intend replying to stuff like what you wrote
anymore. The reply was just to request Prof. Grimes to keep posting.
Prof. Grimes, I am sure you are like the proverbial lotus leaf.
namastubhyam.

Rama.