8. One may attain to the knowledge of Brahman without having studied the ceremonial parts of the Vedas.

DEAR SIR,

It is more than a week since I received your letter, but having had another attack of fever, I could not send a reply all this time, for which please excuse me. For an interval of a month and a half I kept well, but I have suffered again for the last ten days; now I am doing well.

I have certain questions to put, and you, sir, have a wide knowledge of Sanskrit; so please favour me with answers to the following:

1. Does any narrative occur about Satyakāma, son of Jabālā, and about Jānashruti, anywhere else in the Vedas excepting the Upanishads? [1]

ⓘ[1] Shankarāchārya in his commentary on the Vedānta-Sutras, I. iii. 34–37, interprets the aphorisms to prove that Upanishadic wisdom was imparted to Jānashruti and Satyakāma, only because they were not Shudras, as borne out by actual texts. But as these texts are doubtful even after Shankarāchārya’s explanation, Swamiji wants to be referred to other similar Vedic texts.

2. In most cases where Shankarāchārya quotes Smriti in his commentary on the Vedānta-Sutras, he cites the authority of the Mahābhārata. But seeing that we find clear proofs about caste being based on qualification both in the Bhishmaparva of the Mahābhārata and in the stories there of the Ajagara and of Umā and Maheshvara, has he made any mention in his writings of this fact?

3. The doctrine of caste in the Purusha-Sukta of the Vedas does not make it hereditary—so what are those instances in the Vedas where caste has been made a matter of hereditary transmission?

4. The Āchārya could not adduce any proof from the Vedas to the effect that the Shudra should not study the Vedas. He only quotes “यज्ञेऽनवक्लृप्त:” [1] (Tai. Samhitā, VII. i. l. 6) to maintain that when he is not entitled to perform Yajnas, he has neither any right to study the Upanishads and the like. But the same Āchārya contends with reference to “अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा”, [2] (Vedānta-Sutras, I. i. l) that the word अथ here does not mean “subsequent to the study of the Vedas”, because it is contrary to proof that the study of the Upanishad is not permissible without the previous study of the Vedic Mantras and Brāhmanas and because there is no intrinsic sequence between the Vedic Karma-kānda and Vedic Janāna-kānda. It is evident, therefore, that one may attain to the knowledge of Brahman without having studied the ceremonial parts of the Vedas. So if there is no sequence between the sacrificial practices and Jnāna, why does the Āchārya contradict his own statement when it is a case of the Shudras, by inserting the clause “by force of the same logic”? Why should the Shudra not study the Upanishad?

ⓘ[1] “The Shudra is not conceived of as a performer of Yajna or Vedic sacrifices.”
[2] “Now then commences hence the inquiry about Brahman.”

I am mailing you, sir, a book named Imitation of Christ written by a Christian Sannyāsin. It is a wonderful book. One is astonished to find that such renunciation, Vairāgya, and Dāsya-Bhakti have existed even among the Christians. Probably you may have read this book before; if not, it will give me the greatest pleasure if you will kindly read it.

Yours etc.,
VIVEKANANDA.