|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
preparation which constitutes proper study cannot occur; therefore that understanding which sudras get by studying books, etc., cannot be fruitful. It is therefore proven that because the sudra lacks the scripturally authorized capacity, he is not competent for meditation on Brahman.
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Though intending a universally pertinent domain, Brahman, salvific knowledge is nevertheless mediated by the Text, and access to the Text is mediated by the approved set of Textually articulated preparations and refinements. As in the Mimamsa argument, the exclusion of the sudra is argued entirely in terms of an argument about the Veda; nothing is said about the natural abilities of the sudra, nor about knowledge "in itself." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The argumentation is pure Mimamsa, and these judgments about access to knowledge of Brahman are made only by those who are masters of Mimamsa; the arguments rely on judgments by the Advaitins as Uttara Mimamsakas who decide what is an appropriate reading of the debated texts. It is only within the shared horizon of Mimamsa normativity that Mimamsa examples are judged apt by the purvapaksin, but then judged irrelevant, in these particular adhikaranas, by the siddhantin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is no surprise then that not only is the desire to know Brahman mediated through Textual knowledge, but also that access to the Text is judged possible only in an intelligent reading which is mediated through the proper channels of initiation and relationship to a teacher. Once the link of knowledge and Text is established, the simple nonduality of knowledge is submitted to an ever broader and more complex set of qualifications pertaining to readers and their reading. If ultimately the accomplishment of Advaita as Vedanta rests on an event of pure and simple understanding, in Advaita as Uttara Mimamsa this event is inscribed within an entire set of claims about who is in the position to make such judgments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is quite likely that the contemporary reader will remain unpersuaded by the Advaita decision to exclude sudras from proper knowledge of Brahman, and there are many arguments for a different conclusion. But the dissatisfaction points to the tension that lies at the heart of the Advaita discourse, the ten- |
|
|
|
|
|