{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe34/sbe34103.htm","path":"hin/sbe34/sbe34103.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34103.htm","text":"The Vedanta Sutras, commentary by Sankaracharya (SBE34), tr. by George Thibaut [1890]\n34. Grief of him (i.e. of G\u00e2nasruti) (arose) on account of his hearing a disrespectful speech about himself; on account of the rushing on of that (grief) (Raikva called him S\u00fbdra); for it (the grief) is pointed at (by Raikva).\n(In the preceding adhikarana) the exclusiveness of the claim of men to knowledge has been refuted, and it has been declared that the gods, &c. also possess such a claim. The present adhikarana is entered on for the purpose of removing the doubt whether, as the exclusiveness of the\nclaim of twice-born men is capable of refutation, the S\u00fbdras also possess such a claim.\nThe p\u00fbrvapakshin maintains that the S\u00fbdras also have such a claim, because they may be in the position of desiring that knowledge, and because they are capable of it; and because there is no scriptural prohibition (excluding them from knowledge) analogous to the text, 'Therefore 1 the S\u00fbdra is unfit for sacrificing' (Taitt. Samh. VII, 1, 1, 6). The reason, moreover, which disqualifies the S\u00fbdras for sacrificial works, viz. their being without the sacred fires, does not invalidate their qualification for knowledge, as knowledge can be apprehended by those also who are without the fires. There is besides an inferential mark supporting the claim of the S\u00fbdras; for in the so-called samvarga-knowledge he (Raikva) refers to G\u00e2nasruti Pautr\u00e2yana, who wishes to learn from him, by the name of S\u00fbdra 'Fie, necklace and carnage be thine, O S\u00fbdra, together with the cows' (Kh. Up. IV, 2, 3). Smriti moreover speaks of Vid\u00fbra and others who were born from S\u00fbdra mothers as possessing eminent knowledge.--Hence the S\u00fbdra has a claim to the knowledge of Brahman.\nTo this we reply that the S\u00fbdras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters; but a S\u00fbdra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecedent the upanayana-ceremony, and that ceremony belongs to the three (higher) castes only. The mere circumstance of being in a condition of desire does not furnish a reason for qualification, if capability is absent. Mere temporal capability again does not constitute a reason for qualification, spiritual capability being required in spiritual matters. And spiritual capability is (in the case of the S\u00fbdras) excluded by their being excluded from the study of the Veda.--The Vedic statement, moreover, that the S\u00fbdra is unfit for sacrifices intimates, because\nfounded on reasoning, that he is unfit for knowledge also; for the argumentation is the same in both cases 1--With reference to the p\u00fbrvapakshin's opinion that the fact of the word 'S\u00fbdra' being enounced in the samvarga-knowledge constitutes an inferential mark (of the S\u00fbdra's qualification for knowledge), we remark that that inferential mark has no force, on account of the absence of arguments. For the statement of an inferential mark possesses the power of intimation only in consequence of arguments being adduced; but no such arguments are brought forward in the passage quoted. 2 Besides, the word 'S\u00fbdra' which occurs in the samvarga-vidy\u00e2 would establish a claim on the part of the S\u00fbdras to that one vidy\u00e2 only, not to all vidy\u00e2s. In reality, however, it is powerless, because occurring in an arthav\u00e2da, to establish the S\u00fbdras' claim to anything.--The word 'S\u00fbdra' can moreover be made to agree with the context in which it occurs in the following manner. When G\u00e2nasruti Pautr\u00e2yana heard himself spoken of with disrespect by the flamingo ('How can you speak of him, being what he is, as if he were like Raikva with the car?' IV, i, 3), grief (suk) arose in his mind, and to that grief the rishi Raikva alludes with the word S\u00fbdra, in order to show thereby his knowledge of what is remote. This explanation must be accepted because a (real) born S\u00fbdra is not qualified (for the samvarga-vidy\u00e2. If it be asked how the grief (suk) which had arisen in G\u00e2nasruti's mind can be referred to by means of the word S\u00fbdra, we reply: On account of the rushing on (\u00e2dravana) of the grief. For we may etymologise the word S\u00fbdra by dividing it into its parts, either as 'he rushed into grief (Sukam abhidudr\u00e2va) or as 'grief rushed on\nhim,' or as 'he in his grief rushed to Raikva;' while on the other hand it is impossible to accept the word in its ordinary conventional sense. The circumstance (of the king actually being grieved) is moreover expressly touched upon in the legend 1.\n224:1 The commentaries explain 'therefore' by 'on account of his being devoid of the three sacred fires.' This explanation does not, however, agree with the context of the Taitt. Samh.\n225:1 The S\u00fbdra not having acquired a knowledge of Vedic matters in the legitimate way, i. e. through the study of the Veda under the guidance of a guru, is unfit for sacrifices as well as for vidy\u00e2.\n225:2 The linga contained in the word 'S\u00fbdra' has no proving power as it occurs in an arthav\u00e2da-passage which has no authority if not connected with a corresponding injunctive passage. In our case the linga in the arthav\u00e2da-passage is even directly contradicted by those injunctions which militate against the S\u00fbdras' qualification for Vedic matters.\n226:1 Hamsav\u00e2ky\u00e2d \u00e2tmano#n\u00e2daram srutv\u00e2 g\u00e2nasruteh sug utpannety etad eva katham gamyate yen\u00e2sau s\u00fbdrasabdena s\u00fbkyate tatr\u00e2ha sprisyate keti. \u00c2nanda Giri.","title":"The Vedanta Sutras, Sankaracharya, comm.: First Adhy\u00e2ya, Third P\u00e2da: I, 3, 34","type":"page"}