United States or Zimbabwe ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
This shows that there are connected with the vidya, Brahmanas, and from among non-Brahmanas, a Kshattriya only, but not a Sudra. It therefore appears appropriate to infer that the person, other than the Brahmana Raikva, who is likewise connected with this vidya, viz. Janasruti, is likewise a Kshattriya, not a Sudra. But how do we know that Abhipratarin is a Kaitraratha and a Kshattriya?
'from him there was descended a Kaitraratha who was a prince. All this favours the inference that Abhipratarin was a Kaitraratha and a Kshattriya. So far the Sutras have shown that there is no inferential mark to prove what is contradicted by reasoning, viz. the qualification of the Sudras.
The section beginning 'Once a Brahmakarin begged of Saunaka Kapeya and Abhipratarin Kakshaseni while being waited on at their meal, and ending 'thus do we, O Brahmakarin, meditate on that being, shows Kapeya, Abhipratarin, and the Brahmakarin to be connected with the Samvarga-vidya. Now Abhipratarin is a Kshattriya, the other two are Brahmanas.
The kshattriya-hood of Janasruti is further to be accepted on account of the Kshattriya Abhipratarin Kaitraratha, who is mentioned further on in this very same Samvargavidya which Raikva imparts to Janasruti. But why? As follows.
Neither of these circumstances is stated in the legend in the Samvarga-vidya! To this question the Sutra replies, 'on account of the inferential mark. From the inferential mark that Saunaka Kapeya and Abhipratarin Kakshaseni are said to have been sitting together at a meal we understand that there is some connexion between Abhipratarin and the Kapeyas.
Word Of The Day