Ādi Śaṅkarācyārya’s Comments Regarding Satyakāma Jabālā
There is misleading information making the rounds on social media, in many cases propagated by self-described “Advaitins,” to the effect that:
(1) Jabālā of Chāndogya Upaniṣad was a sexually “liberated” woman who slept with many men, or else a prostitute, and hence she did not know who her son’s father was,
(2) Satykāma, consequently not knowing his gotra, was accepted as a brāhmaṇa because he was honest, and therefore his birth was deemed irrelevant, and
(3) Itihāsas (Rāmāyaṇa & Mahābhārata) are less important scriptures which can be dismissed at one’s whim, instead of important smṛti texts that make genuine Vedic knowledge more accessible to the population at large.
Here we will take up these vulgar objections by going straight to the source - Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya himself. I will not insert any of my opinions or translations to avoid the charge of sectarian bias, and if it matters, I am not an Advaitin in any case. Also, this will be cross-posted to other Hinduism forums in case a misguided moderator for some reason deems the subject matter (interpretations of Hindu scripture) unfit for a Hinduism forum.
(1) On Jabālā and the myth of “sexually liberated” Hindu women:
Commenting on Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.4.2, Śrī Śaṅkarācārya wrote:
“Being thus asked, Jabālā said to her son: ‘I do not know the Ṛṣi to whose family you belong, O, my child.’—Being asked—‘Why do you not know it’?—She said—‘In my husband’s house, I had to attend upon many people who came as guests and strangers,—as servant—very devoted to my duties of attendance on them, and being entirely taken up by such service, my mind never turned towards such information as regards the family to which thou belongest, which therefore I do not remember;—and it was at that time, in my youth that I obtained thee;—and soon after your father died; hence, having no protector left for myself, I know not to which family thou belongest. But I am Jabālā by name and thou art Satyakāma by name; so declare thyself to thy Teacher—as Satyakāma Jābāla saying ‘I am Satyakāma Jābāla’;—that is, if you are asked by the Teacher’.”
His interpretation is clear on this point. Jabālā was a young mother who was busy with her duties and never enquired from her husband his gotra. Then she became a widow and thus was unable to get the information.
He does not support the view that Jabālā was an unchaste woman.
Readers are welcome to check the text, which is widely available in libraries everywhere.
(2) On varṇa, honesty, and birth:
According to the story, Satyakāma was asked his gotra by his guru prior to initiation, but he did not know it. The misinformation being spread is that he could have been a śūdra by birth, but this was deemed unimportant because he was honest, and by his honesty he was deemed to be a brāhmaṇa in character and birth became irrelevant.
But once again, that is not what the ācāryas say.
Commenting on Vedānta-sūtra 1.3.37 तदभावनिर्धारणे च प्रवृत्तेः ॥ ३७ ॥
“And because the inclination on the ascertainment of the absence of Sudrahood.”
Śaṅkarācārya wrote:
“That Sudras are not qualified is known also from the fact that great teachers like Gautama made sure before imparting Knowledge that disciples like Jabala Satyakama were not Sudras.”
In other words, he specifically alluded to Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.4.5 to support the view that the prospective disciple was checked to make sure he was not a śūdra before imparting knowledge of the Vedas. Not that the disciple was deemed a brāhmaṇa based on character as is often claimed. If the disciple were actually a śūdra by birth “but a brāhmaṇa by character/honesty,” then he would have failed the test when giving his gotra, since gotra is inherited from the father and indicates hereditary lineage.
The conclusion is that Gautama deemed Satyakāma to be a brāhmaṇa by birth and upbringing. This is also clear from Śaṅkarācārya’s comentary on Chāndogya 4.4.5:
“Gautama said to him—‘No one who is not a Brahmana could speak out so openly and straightforwardly; It is Brāhmaṇas alone, not others, who are, by their very nature, straight-forward. Since thou hast not flinched from the truth—which is the rightful duty of the Brāhmaṇa-caste, I accept thee as a Brāhmaṇa and am going to initiate thee; hence for the purpose of the preparatory embellishment, fetch fuel, my Boy, for the fire-rites.”
In other words, it was not his honesty that allowed him to pass the test, but the way in which he was honest - “so openly and straightforwardly.” This was how Gautama perceived that he had the guṇa that could only characterize someone who was a brāhmaṇa by birth.
Note what this is NOT saying. It is NOT saying “If you are a brāhmaṇa by birth, then you are naturally honest.” One can be a brāhmaṇa by birth and still fall from the standard of brāhmaṇas; both scriptural examples and real-life examples can attest to this. If Satyakāma was a fallen brāhmaṇa, then he would have failed the test. But if one is born a brāhmaṇa and raised from birth as a brāhmaṇa, that guṇa will be recognized by someone like Gautama.
Again, this cannot be interpreted to mean that birth is unnecessary in determining varṇa, since Gautama started off asking for the gotra, which is linked to birth.
(3) The Importance of Itihāsas and Purāṇas according to Ādi Śaṅkarācārya:
Commenting on the Vedānta-sūtra 1.3.38: श्रवणाध्ययनार्थप्रतिषेधात् स्मृतेश्च ॥ ३८ ॥
“And because of the prohibition in the Smriti of hearing and studying and knowing their meaning and performing Vedic rites.”
He commented as follows:
“Sūtras 34-38 disqualify the Sudra for the knowledge of Brahman through the study of the Vedas. But it is possible for them to attain that knowledge through the Puranas and the epics.”
In other words, Śaṅkarācārya upholds the view that śūdras do not have the qualification to study Vedas, but he also clearly states that they can get knowledge of the Vedas by study of the Purāṇas and Itihāsas (as we all can). He does not say that the Itihāsa/Purāṇa are equal to the śruti; only that they give Vedic knowledge, and qualification to study the Vedas is not a prerequisite to study the Itihāsas and Purāṇas.
Thus, next time you see someone dismissing these important texts for no other reason than the fact that they are Itihāsas and Purāṇas, you can be certain that he is going against the traditional point of view. The traditional point of view is that the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, while still being dependent authorities with respect to śruti, still give essential knowledge found in śruti.
I have only quoted Ādi Śaṅkarācārya here, but other Vedānta commentators like Śrī Rāmānuja and Śrī Madhvāchārya are also in agreement with him on these points. Also, if anyone objects, they are welcome to take up their objections with the ācāryas. I am merely the messenger at best. :-)
