According to "Great" Hindu Philosopher Adi Sankaracharya, Sudras are disqualified from performing Vedic rituals or even studying the Vedas

(In the preceding adhikarana) the exclusiveness of the claim of men to knowledge has been refuted, and it has been declared that the gods, &c. also possess such a claim. The present adhikarana is entered on for the purpose of removing the doubt whether, as the exclusiveness of the

p. 224

claim of twice-born men is capable of refutation, the Sûdras also possess such a claim.

The pûrvapakshin maintains that the Sûdras also have such a claim, because they may be in the position of desiring that knowledge, and because they are capable of it; and because there is no scriptural prohibition (excluding them from knowledge) analogous to the text, 'Therefore 1 the Sûdra is unfit for sacrificing' (Taitt. Samh. VII, 1, 1, 6). The reason, moreover, which disqualifies the Sûdras for sacrificial works, viz. their being without the sacred fires, does not invalidate their qualification for knowledge, as knowledge can be apprehended by those also who are without the fires. There is besides an inferential mark supporting the claim of the Sûdras; for in the so-called samvarga-knowledge he (Raikva) refers to Gânasruti Pautrâyana, who wishes to learn from him, by the name of Sûdra 'Fie, necklace and carnage be thine, O Sûdra, together with the cows' (Kh. Up. IV, 2, 3). Smriti moreover speaks of Vidûra and others who were born from Sûdra mothers as possessing eminent knowledge.--Hence the Sûdra has a claim to the knowledge of Brahman.

To this we reply that the Sûdras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters; but a Sûdra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecedent the upanayana-ceremony, and that ceremony belongs to the three (higher) castes only. The mere circumstance of being in a condition of desire does not furnish a reason for qualification, if capability is absent. Mere temporal capability again does not constitute a reason for qualification, spiritual capability being required in spiritual matters. And spiritual capability is (in the case of the Sûdras) excluded by their being excluded from the study of the Veda.--The Vedic statement, moreover, that the Sûdra is unfit for sacrifices intimates, because

p. 225

founded on reasoning, that he is unfit for knowledge also; for the argumentation is the same in both cases  1--With reference to the pûrvapakshin's opinion that the fact of the word 'Sûdra' being enounced in the samvarga-knowledge constitutes an inferential mark (of the Sûdra's qualification for knowledge), we remark that that inferential mark has no force, on account of the absence of arguments. For the statement of an inferential mark possesses the power of intimation only in consequence of arguments being adduced; but no such arguments are brought forward in the passage quoted.  2 Besides, the word 'Sûdra' which occurs in the samvarga-vidyâ would establish a claim on the part of the Sûdras to that one vidyâ only, not to all vidyâs. In reality, however, it is powerless, because occurring in an arthavâda, to establish the Sûdras' claim to anything.--The word 'Sûdra' can moreover be made to agree with the context in which it occurs in the following manner. When Gânasruti Pautrâyana heard himself spoken of with disrespect by the flamingo ('How can you speak of him, being what he is, as if he were like Raikva with the car?' IV, i, 3), grief (suk) arose in his mind, and to that grief the rishi Raikva alludes with the word Sûdra, in order to show thereby his knowledge of what is remote. This explanation must be accepted because a (real) born Sûdra is not qualified (for the samvarga-vidyâ. If it be asked how the grief (suk) which had arisen in Gânasruti's mind can be referred to by means of the word Sûdra, we reply: On account of the rushing on (âdravana) of the grief. For we may etymologise the word Sûdra by dividing it into its parts, either as 'he rushed into grief (Sukam abhidudrâva) or as 'grief rushed on

p. 226

him,' or as 'he in his grief rushed to Raikva;' while on the other hand it is impossible to accept the word in its ordinary conventional sense. The circumstance (of the king actually being grieved) is moreover expressly touched upon in the legend.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34103.htm

And on account of the prohibition, in Smriti, of (the Sûdras') hearing and studying (the Veda) and (knowing and performing) (Vedic) matters.

The Sûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,' and 'For a Sûdra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra.' From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the Sûdras studying the Veda). 'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.' The prohibitions of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as 'he is not to impart knowledge to the Sûdra,' and 'to the twice-born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.'--From those Sûdras, however, who, like Vidura and 'the religious hunter,' acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld,

p. 229

since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Smriti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihâsas and purânas; compare the passage, 'He is to teach the four castes' (Mahâbh.).--It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34107.htm

You are wrong Rashmun. It's like shooting the messenger on your part. What you are writing in the above about Sankara, including some references cited by you,  with respect to Sudra, that merely reflects and applies to Sankara's translations / comments about the texts by others and not Sankara's own opinions. As for Sankara, he did not consider Sudra unworthy of salvation and unfit to attain the highest religiously / spiritually.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:You are wrong Rashmun. It's like shooting the messenger on your part. What you are writing in the above about Sankara, including some references cited by you,  with respect to Sudra, that merely reflects and applies to Sankara's translations / comments about the texts by others and not Sankara's own opinions. As for Sankara, he did not consider Sudra unworthy of salvation and unfit to attain the highest religiously / spiritually.

Swami Vivekananda disagrees with your assessment of Sankara's views about Sudras:

https://such.forumotion.com/t36895-swami-vivekananda-vs-adi-shankaracharya-vivekananda-slams-adi-shankara-for-propagating-casteist-nonsense#218627

I prefer to believe Swami Vivekananda over Swami Seva.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:You are wrong Rashmun. It's like shooting the messenger on your part. What you are writing in the above about Sankara, including some references cited by you,  with respect to Sudra, that merely reflects and applies to Sankara's translations / comments about the texts by others and not Sankara's own opinions. As for Sankara, he did not consider Sudra unworthy of salvation and unfit to attain the highest religiously / spiritually.

Soon Rashmun will respond with two new handles - one will criticize you and the other will heap praise on Rashmun's brilliance. He believes in avataras talking to each other.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:You are wrong Rashmun. It's like shooting the messenger on your part. What you are writing in the above about Sankara, including some references cited by you,  with respect to Sudra, that merely reflects and applies to Sankara's translations / comments about the texts by others and not Sankara's own opinions. As for Sankara, he did not consider Sudra unworthy of salvation and unfit to attain the highest religiously / spiritually.

Soon Rashmun will respond with two new handles - one will criticize you and the other will heap praise on Rashmun's brilliance. He believes in avataras talking to each other.

this post of Vakavaka brings back fond memories of the Sulekha days. First, when he got caught for abusing the poster Ibrahim using multiple handles on Sulekha, and second when he got caught for abusing me on Sulekha using another handle. According to Ibrahim, Vakavaka would regularly post using multiple handles on the Indolink forum, and whereas he claimed to be a male on Sulekha he would claim to be a female on the Indolink forum.

OM:

Adi Sankarar view is wrong.

Per Tamil Saivaism nothing is created from the

 void and annihilated into the void.

( his View of Maya is wrong )

No doubt he spread the SanaDana Dharma

Throughout  India.

Best regards,

sarasalai_sivaa

OM

Tamil Saivasim  explains the past , present and the

Future.

Vedas did not mention much about the FUTURE.

Vedas mentioned about the past and present.

Civa's cosmic dance explains the past , present

And the future

Creation;  Sustenance and destruction.

North tries to suppress the  importance of

Of this but failed .. ( Via Ramayana and Mahabharata)


Many Tamil  scriptures were sanskritized

And original Tamil were destroyed .
North Indians are trying even to-day.


sarasalai_sivaa
sarasalai_sivaa

Is sarasalai_sivaa

the sishya of kafir lingam worshipping Aurangajeb - Rashmun?

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Is sarasalai_sivaa

the sishya of kafir lingam worshipping Aurangajeb - Rashmun?

nope. not me.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:You are wrong Rashmun. It's like shooting the messenger on your part. What you are writing in the above about Sankara, including some references cited by you,  with respect to Sudra, that merely reflects and applies to Sankara's translations / comments about the texts by others and not Sankara's own opinions. As for Sankara, he did not consider Sudra unworthy of salvation and unfit to attain the highest religiously / spiritually.

Soon Rashmun will respond with two new handles - one will criticize you and the other will heap praise on Rashmun's brilliance. He believes in avataras talking to each other.

hahaha...don't you think he is an interesting case study

garam_kuta wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:You are wrong Rashmun. It's like shooting the messenger on your part. What you are writing in the above about Sankara, including some references cited by you,  with respect to Sudra, that merely reflects and applies to Sankara's translations / comments about the texts by others and not Sankara's own opinions. As for Sankara, he did not consider Sudra unworthy of salvation and unfit to attain the highest religiously / spiritually.

Soon Rashmun will respond with two new handles - one will criticize you and the other will heap praise on Rashmun's brilliance. He believes in avataras talking to each other.

hahaha...don't you think he is an interesting case study

உங்களை ஃபக் செல்ல

Rashmun wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:You are wrong Rashmun. It's like shooting the messenger on your part. What you are writing in the above about Sankara, including some references cited by you,  with respect to Sudra, that merely reflects and applies to Sankara's translations / comments about the texts by others and not Sankara's own opinions. As for Sankara, he did not consider Sudra unworthy of salvation and unfit to attain the highest religiously / spiritually.

Soon Rashmun will respond with two new handles - one will criticize you and the other will heap praise on Rashmun's brilliance. He believes in avataras talking to each other.

hahaha...don't you think he is an interesting case study

உங்களை ஃபக் செல்ல

Eh?

Rashmun wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:You are wrong Rashmun. It's like shooting the messenger on your part. What you are writing in the above about Sankara, including some references cited by you,  with respect to Sudra, that merely reflects and applies to Sankara's translations / comments about the texts by others and not Sankara's own opinions. As for Sankara, he did not consider Sudra unworthy of salvation and unfit to attain the highest religiously / spiritually.

Soon Rashmun will respond with two new handles - one will criticize you and the other will heap praise on Rashmun's brilliance. He believes in avataras talking to each other.

hahaha...don't you think he is an interesting case study

உங்களை ஃபக் செல்ல

you're right. hahaha "He believes in avatars ஃபக்king to each other."

garam_kuta wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:You are wrong Rashmun. It's like shooting the messenger on your part. What you are writing in the above about Sankara, including some references cited by you,  with respect to Sudra, that merely reflects and applies to Sankara's translations / comments about the texts by others and not Sankara's own opinions. As for Sankara, he did not consider Sudra unworthy of salvation and unfit to attain the highest religiously / spiritually.

Soon Rashmun will respond with two new handles - one will criticize you and the other will heap praise on Rashmun's brilliance. He believes in avataras talking to each other.

hahaha...don't you think he is an interesting case study

உங்களை ஃபக் செல்ல

you're right***. hahaha "He believes in his own avatars ஃபக்king to each other."

***btw, you're right vakvaka..