Satyakama and Jabala Story (Cast system ...)

[Guest guest]

Dear Ajit,

 

I am really sorry, but I have to disagree with you in this issue.

 

With due respect to you and Sri S.N. Sastri, I must say that Rajarshi's view

is far more accurate and truthful to the scripture. In fact, Swami

Vivekananda also shared exactly the same view (i.e. Rajarshi's view) when

commenting on this story from Chhaandogypanishad!

 

* * *

 

The specific line where mother Jabaalaa tells son Satyakaama about his gotra

in Chandogyopanishad is:

 

" naahametadveda taata yadgotrastvamasi bahvaham charantii parichaariNii

yauvane tvaamalabhe saahametanna veda yadgotrastvamasi " (chhaandogyopaniShad

4.4.2)

 

Literal meaning word to word is: taata = son, aham = I, na veda = not know,

etat = that, yat = which, gotras = gotra, tvam = you, asi = are, aham = I,

charantii = moving, bahu = a lot, parichaariNii = servant maid, yauvane = in

youth, tvaam = you, alabhe = got, saaham = thus I, na veda = not know, etat

= that, yat = which, gotras = gotra, tvam = you, asi = are.

 

Literal translation without any interpretation (or spin) is:

 

" Son, I do not which gotra you are. I was a servant maid moving a lot in

youth when I got you. Thus, I do not know which gotra you are. "

 

* * *

 

Now, I cannot reconcile Sri S.N. Sastri's interpretation with the above at

all. Even today, in this deep Kali yuga, Brahmins do find out the gotra

before marriage and avoid marrying people from the same gotra at any cost. I

find it strange that one would get married without finding gotra in old

days. In any case, there is no reference to such a thing above. There is

also no reference to early death of father. If she did not know the gotra

because her husband died when child was young and she did not ask at the

time of marriage, she would've explicitly said that and not say " I was a

servant maid moving a lot in youth when I got you. Thus, I do not know which

gotra you are. " If the true reason is that her husband died young, what is

the relevance of her being a servant maid and her moving a lot? Why would

she mention those irrelevant points and not her husband dying young?

 

Thus, I cannot support Sri S.N. Sastri's view at all. It seems quite

far-fetched and motivated to me.

 

* * *

 

If one's conditioned mind cannot accept the fact that a maharshi accepted

the son of a woman who would be considered " fallen " by the moral standards

one is used to, then one would probably try to imagine things, twist the

words of a scripture and give an interpretation that fits with one's notions

of right and wrong. But then, one would be missing out on the true morals of

the scripture and an opportunity to question and refine one's pre-exiting

notions of right and wrong...

 

* * *

 

Let us say an unmarried woman with good control over senses wanted a child.

Let us say she slept with five men that she liked and respected, with mutual

consent, on five different occasions, not for carnal pleasure, but with the

sole intention of begetting a child with any of them and then raising the

child alone.

 

Let us say another person (man or woman) slept with the same person that one

is ritually married to, on five different occasions, not with the intention

of begetting a child but just for carnal pleasure (i.e. using birth control

methods).

 

Which is worse? Which has a higher purpose? Which more adharmik?

 

* * *

 

Prevalent rules of morality are there for general guidance. World will sink

into an abyss of chaos and adharma without them and they are definitely

needed. But they are not absolute.

 

The correct judgment of right and wrong does not always come from the

application of a set of rigid rules. Correct judgment comes only from a

refined and purified mind. Scriptures and actions of rishis and gods

contained in them (and actions of other great souls of recent centuries who

were most likely reincarnations of rishis and gods) are there to clarify and

refine our understanding of what is right and what is wrong. As we

understand more and purify ourselves more, our judgment will become more and

more perfect.

 

Best regards,

Narasimha

 

Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

Spirituality:

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

 

 

--------------

Original Thread

--------------

1 Rajarshi:

 

The Chandogya Upanishad mentions this incident. The boy came to Gauthama

Rishi for knowledge and the Rishi asked him for his gotra. The boy goes back

to his mother and finds out that his mother is not aware of who the father

was. The boy comes back and says the same to Rishi Guathama, who says that

he shall teach the boy as the boy belongs to the gotra of truth, and thus by

default is a Brahmana.

 

" Thereupon the boy went to Gautama and asked to be accepted as a student.

'Of what family are you, my lad?' inquired the sage. Satyakama replied: 'I

asked my mother what my family name was, and she answered: " I do not know.

In my youth I was a servant and worked in many places. I do not know who was

your father. I am Jabala, and you are Satyakama. Call yourself Satyakama

Jabala! " I am therefore Satyakama Jabala, sir.' Then said the sage: 'None

but a true Brahmin would have spoken thus. Go and fetch fuel, for I will

teach you. You have not swerved from the truth.' " (Chandogya Upanishad

4:4:3,4)

 

So that is one sure shot, explicit case, where a Rishi shows that the tag

Brahmin is more by action than by birth.

--------------

2 Ajit:

 

This is a popular misconception. Satyakama asks his mother this

question upfront. The mother does not know her child's gotra. Why? In

olden days, women married young, and did not ask questions such as

" Who are you? What is your gotra? " to their husband. (In some areas,

this is still taboo today.) Over time, the gotra would be repeated

during various samskara's, she would naturally remember it. The

conclusion here is that her husband, whom she served with devotion,

died young.

 

The seers were tri-kAla-darshi-s. Gautama knew of his boy's pedigree

before asking him the question. After hearing his answer, he says " A

non-brahmin could not have said this . . . you have not swerved from

the truth " . " satyam " is explained as " brAhmaNa-jAti-dharma " .

 

First, you have a jAti-brAhmaNa who desires to go to a preceptor, on

his own, during childhood. He then answers the preceptor's question

truthfully, in his mother's own words, without embellishment. This is

a very rare set of events. Of course the acharyA sees the worthy

student in front of him.

--------------

3 Rajarshi:

 

I do not agree to this analysis of the incident.

--------------

4 Ajit:

 

You are certainly welcome to your opinions. However, the view I shared

is the traditional one, and it makes quite a bit of sense to me. I am

content with the traditional understanding, which shows this woman as

a pativrata. In the famed 3-volume set " Upanishad Bhashyam " , the

editor, Sri S.N.Sastri has a very lengthly footnote on the subject.

Those who are interested can go through it.

--------------

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha,

 

> I am really sorry, but I have to disagree with you in this issue.

 

 

I do not know what there is to be sorry about.

 

 

> With due respect to you and Sri S.N. Sastri, I must say that Rajarshi's view

> is far more accurate and truthful to the scripture. In fact, Swami

> Vivekananda also shared exactly the same view (i.e. Rajarshi's view) when

> commenting on this story from Chhaandogypanishad!

 

 

I mentioned Sri S.N.Sastri's name, because he has a long 2-page

footnote discussion on the subject, and not to bolster my argument by

association. If I had wished to do the latter, I would have invoked

AdishankarachArya -- " paricAriNii paricaranti iti paracaraNa-shiiilA

eva aham paricaraNa-chittatayA gotrAdi-smaraNe mama manaH na abhUt "

and Anandagiri -- " punaH tasya uparatatvAt " . According the S.N.Sastri,

Shri Ramanuja and Shri Madhva also d to the same view.

 

 

> Now, I cannot reconcile Sri S.N. Sastri's interpretation with the above at

> all. Even today, in this deep Kali yuga, Brahmins do find out the gotra

> before marriage and avoid marrying people from the same gotra at any cost. I

> find it strange that one would get married without finding gotra in old

> days.

 

 

Needless criticism. I obviously conveyed the wrong message -- the

argument is that she does not remember her new gotra, and not that she

was never exposed to it. Some things require repeated repetition

before they register. It is quite normal, even today, for brides and

in-laws to be very forgetful (or, more accurately " un-remember-ful " )

of their new gotra.

 

 

> If the true reason is that her husband died young, what is

> the relevance of her being a servant maid and her moving a lot? Why would

> she mention those irrelevant points and not her husband dying young?

 

 

The points mentioned are not at all irrelevant. It is a partial excuse

/ apology. Her mind was totally occupied in these activities. In her

youth, it did not occur to her to pay attention and remember her

gotra. Narasimha, this is a conversation between mother and son. If

the father died young, it would be well-known, and there would be no

reason for the mother to " disclose " it to her son at this time. When

answering the question, there is simply no need to start reciting the

litany of known facts. On the other hand, the points mentioned are

relevant, since they show her state of mind. It is a natural lament.

 

 

> Thus, I cannot support Sri S.N. Sastri's view at all. It seems quite

> far-fetched and motivated to me.

 

 

The first sentence is quite reasonable. To say that it seems

far-fetched to you, is also very reasonable. However, the last

criticism is unfair, and cannot be substantiated. Though I did not

wish to say it, I have the same criticism -- I see an attempt to

retrofit a story to result in a desirable conclusion, which would make

for an excellent example.

 

 

> If one's conditioned mind cannot accept the fact that a maharshi accepted

> the son of a woman who would be considered " fallen " by the moral standards

<snipped>

 

 

This diatribe is interesting, but irrelevant to this dicussion. I am

happy to accept that this is how maharshis worked. But, this incident

is not a good example. The traditional understanding adds facts which

are not found in the upanishad. However, in my opinion, in this

instance, it fits in quite well.

 

savinayam praNato.asmi,

 

ajit