On equality

In one of my early blogs I pointed out a verse from Vivekachoodamani of the Ekanmavadha philosopher - Adisankara. . You may say 'Halt ! Everybody knows that Adisankara as the proponent of Advaidhic philosophy or the Vedanta philosophy 'what is this Ekanmavadha....Hmmm....let me explain

a. Vedanta i.e., Veda + anta - literally means the end portion of the Vedas and hence Upanishads.
b. Advaita i.e A + dvaita - literally means - Not two or non dual. Sankara interpreted this as one. There are different interpretations. We will come to this point later. For the moment we will stay with Adisankara's.

Vedanta philosophy is hence the philosophy of the Upanishads . Adisankara's is one of the many interpretations of this philosophy - not the only one and not necessarily the correct one too ! There are other philosophers who raise lot of questions on Sankara's interpretation.

Advaita has also been interpreted differently by different philosophers. And here too Sankara's is not necessarily the only one and not necessarily the correct one.

To call it properly, Sankara's philosophy is the philosophy of monism or Ekaanmavadha - or the agrument of one soul. It is that there is only one thing material - i.e., brahmam or the supreme one. The world and individual souls are merely transient and illusory. The soul , according to his philosophy , is identical with the infinite reality of the universe the brahmam.

It is not my intentition to question the interpretation of Adisankara here. I would however like to examine if he has been consistent in his interpretation and followed what he preached. In his Vivekachoodamani, verse 2, Sankara says

''For all beings a human birth is difficult to obtain, more so is a male body; rarer than that is Brahmanahood; rarer still is the attachment to the path of Vedic religion; higher than this is erudition in the scriptures; discrimination between the Self and not-Self, Realisation, and continuing in a state of identity with Brahman – these come next in order. (This kind of) Mukti (Liberation) is not to be attained except through the well-earned merits of a hundred crore of births.''

The inconsistencies glare: While on one side everything is supposed to be one 'Sarvam Brahma mayam '
a. Why is the human being considered superior to other living things ?
b. Why is the male considered superior to the female ?
c. Why is a brahmin considered superior to others ?
And assuming for the sake of an argument that brahminhood is superior - what was the necessity to preclude the so called Shudras from vedic practice and attain brahminhood ( Please read Sankara's interpretation of the Brahmasutras ).Can this classification of varnas be based on birth ? How is this classification sensible ? if on birth - on the birth of what ? - the soul is supposed to be eternal and hence it cannot be born. Then birth should be of the body . But body is transient and illusory - a product of Maya. On what basis is this classification done - and how just is this ? Where goes Sankara's wonderful monistic philosophy ?

How elite and magnimous can a person be who does not agreed to the equality of man and man and man and other living beings. What a hypocracy ? Or is this conspiracy ?.

Disturbed...

I just read that some (in)human beings had attacked a set of 'Dalits' near Madurai as one of the boys had touched the parasol ( Kudai) of a Diety. Among the injured was a pregnant women who has now been hospitalized. The people who attacked consider themselves 'Caste Hindus'.

You may ask - why did this Dalit boy go and touch the parasol ?
I wonder if there is a high caste God and a Dalit God... but , in this case atleast , he did not go after the parasol. He was asked to hold it. What had happened is that one of the persons who was carrying the parasol had to tie his Dothi and had passed on the parasol to a boy standing nearby till he got ready to handle it and that boy happened to be a Dalit.

What kind of living creatures are we ? What superiority can we attribute to ourselves when we dont behave like human beings ? Who ever gave the authority that only some persons can even touch the parasol ?

And in yet another instance , I read that Dalits are not being employed for labour, because they entered a temple. In what inhuman civilization do we live ? Cant we be more magnanimous ? When ants, spiders, elephants , piglets, fishes , cranes - all these creatures can worship the Lord and attain salvation - why not these human beings ? What right do we have to stop them ? Who are we ? In what way are we superior to them ?

Let us get to the basic question : Does birth in a particular caste alone entail one for worship and salvation ?

This whole thing of attributing superiority to birth is a fabrication of Sankara' . In his Vivekachoodamani , second song , he states

'' For all beings a human birth is difficult to obtain, more so is a male body; rarer than
that is Brahmanahood; rarer still is the attachment to the path of Vedic religion; higher
than this is erudition in the scriptures; discrimination between the Self and not-Self,
Realisation, and continuing in a state of identity with Brahman – these come next in
order. Mukthi (Liberation) is not to be attained except through the well earned
merits of a hundred crore of births''

Sankara' did not have the benefit of knowing about or reading The Thiruvilaiyaadalpuranam or the Thiruthondarpuraman which speak volumes of the Grace of the Lord - whose criteria for salvation is certainly not birth -not the body- nor the gender - nor the caste.

And we seem to have been so strongly influenced by his very very very flawed thinking. In the first place, I am surprised that he has managed to get away with this , when this single song itself contradicts his ekanmavada theory ( more on that later)....

In any case, I dont see a reason why we stoop to such low and inhuman levels and attribute superiority and inferiority to birth.

As a poet said ...inside my bones , my marrow stirred.