saṃskāraparāmarśāttadabhāvābhilāpācca ..1.3.36..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 94 из 723Следующая ⇒

35. That Janashruti was a Kshatriya is understood from the whole story, because the concluding portion gives the story of a Kshatriya, Abhipratarin who was a Chaitraratha, as is known from an inferential mark later on. — 99.

We learn from the account given in the Upanishad that Janashruti must have been a Kshatriya, because he was a. generous giver of wealth, possessed of faith, was a ruler of a kingdom, which no Shudra is. He has a chamberlain whom be sends in search of Raikva, and because he gave alms, such as, cows, necklace, chariots, daughter, etc. These things are not possible in any but a Kshatriya, because these are the qualities of a king. Thus the opening passage of the story gives us sufficient indication that Janashruti was a Kshatriya. Similarly, the concluding passage also of this section shows that he was a Kshatriya. In the conclusion, where the Samvarga Vidya comes to an end, we find a mention of one Abhipratarin who knew this Brahma Vidya. He was undoubtedly a Kshatriya for the reasons given later on. In the concluding passage we find that a Brahmachari begged food from Shaunaka, son of Kapi, and Abhipratarin, son of Kakshaseni. When these two were serving food to others, this Brahmachari was told that the givers of food knew Samvarga Vidya. But how do you know that this Abhipratarin was a Kshatriya and a Chaitraratha, for there is no express mention of these two facts in the story. To this the Sutra answers, «Lingat». We know this from inferiential mark. Shaunaka Kapeya and Abhipratarin Kakshaseni were connected with Samvarga Vidya. They were sitting together at a meal which also shows that there must have been some connection between Abhipratarin and Kapeya. From Tandya Brahmana (20. 12. 5) we learn that «the Kapeyas made Chaitraratha perform that sacrifice». Thus Kapeyas are connected with the Chaitrarathas. In the Chhandogya story we find that a Kapeya is connected with an Abhipratarin. Therefore, the Abhipratarin of the Chhandogya must have been a Chaitraratha. For it was a well-known custom in ancient India, that a Brahmana family was always connected with a Kshatriya family and not with more than one family. That the Chaitraratha was a Kshatriya is proved by another text which says, «from him there was descended a Chaitraratha who was a Kshatrapati or prince». Therefore, it proves that Abhipratarin was a Chaitraratha and a Kshatriya.

Therefore, it is proved that these two worshippers of Samvarga Vidya, namely, Kapeya and Abhipratarin, were one a Brahmana and the other a Kshatriya, and with regard to this Samvarga Vidya they were connected as the teacher and the disciple. Raikva and Janashruti are also connected together as teacher and disciple, and as Raikva was a Brahmana, therefore Janashruti must have been a Kshatriya. Therefore, it has been proved logically and by reasoning, that a Shudra is not qualified to study the Vedas or to perform Vaidic meditations.

Note: That, (his Sutra is an interpolation is proved by the fallacious reasoning that will be apparent to every tyro in logic. The argument, adduced in this Sutra may he thus summarised. Janashruti must he a Kshatriya, because Raikva was a Brahmana. The argument that Janashruti was n prince, and therefore, he must be a Kshatriya, begs the whole question. It is a historical fact that there were many Dasa kings in ancient India. They were all Shudras, but all the same they were enlightened and generous princes, like Janashruti. The argument that a Brahmana is connected with Janashruti is no argument at all. In the first place, it is not true that Brahmanas were not. Purohitas of Shudras; secondly, Raikva is not, the family Guru or Purohita of Janashruti. Raikva was a wandering Fakir, whom Janashruti adopts as his teacher temporarily only. Nor are there any indications in this Upanishad to show that Raikva was a Brahmana. His epithet «of the car» is rather curious for a person belonging to the highest caste. Very likely he was a Kshatriya, for we know from the Upanishads that Brahma Vidya was confined to the Kshatriyas in the beginning; and it is from the Kshatriyas that the Brahmanas learnt it. The second portion of the argument is also no argument at all. The section on Samvarga Vidya mentions two persons of the name of Kapeya and Abhipratarin. But there is nothing to show to what caste they belong. Abhipratarin is not expressly stated to be a Kshatriya. The argument by which he is made out a Kshatriya is this: The Kapeyas were the family priests of Chaitrarathas. A Kapeya is found dining together with an Abhipratarin. Therefore, Abhipratarin must be a Chaitraratha. This forced logic, which is simply no logic, is a mark of modern bigotry, rather than the ancient simplicity of a Rishi.

SUTRA I. 3. 36.

संस्कारपरामर्शात्तदभावाभिलापाच्च॥१.३.३६॥

… Samskara, the purificatory ceremonies, the sacraments, the investiture with sacral thread. … Paramarshat, because of the reference, because the Shastras say that investiture with a sacred thread is the preliminary ceremony to the study of Vedanta. Because of the implication. … Tad, that ceremony… Abhava, absence. … Abhilapat, because of the declaration. .. Cha, and.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Области применения синхронных машин

Оптимизация по Винеру и Калману