35 None

35. And because the kshattriyahood (of Jānaśruti) is understood from the inferential mark (supplied by his being mentioned) later on with Caitraratha (who was a kshattriya himself).

Gānaśruti cannot have been a Śūdra by birth for that reason also that his being a kshattriya is understood from an inferential sign, viz. his being mentioned together (in one chapter) with the kshattriya Caitraratha Abhipratārin. For, later on, i.e. in the passage complementary to the saṁvarga-vidyā, a kshattriya Caitrarathi Abhipratārin is glorified, ‘Once while Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratārin Kākshaseni were being waited on at their meal a religious student begged of them’ (Cḥ. Up. IV, 3, 5). That this Abhipratārin was a Caitrarathi (i.e. a descendant of Citraratha) we have to infer from his connexion with a Kāpeya. For we know (from Śruti) about the connexion of Citraratha himself with the Kāpeyas (’the Kāpeyas made Citraratha perform that sacrifice;’ Tāṇḍya. Br. XX, 12, 5), and as a rule sacrificers of one and the same family employ officiating priests of one and the same family. Moreover, as we understand from Scripture (‘from him a Caitrarathi descended who was a prince ¹’) that he (Caitraratha) was a prince, we must

The text of the Tāṇḍya Br. runs: tasmāc caitrarathīnām ekaḥ kshatrapatir gāyate, and the commentary explains: tasmāt kāraṇād adyāpi citravaṁśotpannānāṁ madhye eka eva rājā kshatrapatir balādhipatir bhavati.

Grammar does not authorise the form caitraratha used in the Sūtra.

understand him to have been a kshattriya. The fact now of Jānaśruti being praised in the same vidyā with the kshattriya Abhipratārin intimates that the former also was a kshattriya. For as a rule equals are mentioned together with equals. That Jānaśruti was a kshattriya we moreover conclude from his sending his door-keeper and from other similar signs of power (mentioned in the text).

Hence the Śūdras are not qualified (for the knowledge of Brahman).