गोविन्द भाष्य (श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण - अचिन्त्यभेदाभेद वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र भाष्य सटीक)

kṣatriyatvāvagates cottaratra caitrarathena liṅgāt kṣatriyatva-status of being a kṣatriya; avagateś-from the understanding; ca-also; uttaratra-in a later passage; caitrarathena-with Caitraratha; liṅgāt-because of the sign. That he is a kṣatriya is understood from the clue related to the caitraratha. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Jānaśruti is understood to be a kṣatriya. He possesses religious faith and a host of other virtues. He is very charitable. He gives charity generously. He is the ruler of the people. For these reasons it is said that he is a kṣatriya. Because he sent (a messenger to search for Raiṅka) and because he gave cows, necklaces, chariots, his daughter, and many other things in charity, it is said that he is a kṣatriya. It is not possible for anyone but a kṣatriya to possess these qualities. Because he thus displays the qualities of a king, Jānaśruti should be understood to be a kṣatriya. At the end of the story it is also understood that he is a kṣatriya. At the end of the story, where the description of saṁvarga-vidyā is concluded, there is mention of the kṣatriya status of a person named Abhipratārī Caitraratha. In the concluding passage a brahmacārī begged alms from Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratārī Kākṣaseni when these two were serving food to others. If someone objects: "In this passage the status of Abhipratārī as either a kṣatriya or caitraratha is not proved in any way," then the sūtra answers: liṅgāt (because of a clue). The clue that Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratārī Kākṣaseni were friends proves it. The Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa (20.12.5) says: caitena caitrarathaṁ kāpeyo ayājayan (The members of the Kāpeya family made Caitraratha perform a sacrifice). In this way the śruti maintains that because of his relationship with the Kāpeyas, Abhipratārī must have been a Caitraratha. That the Caitraratha family were kṣatriyas is confirmed by the words tasmāc caitrarathir nāma kṣatra-patir ajāyata (From him was born another kṣatriya of the Caitraratha family). In this way his kṣatriya status is clearly proved. Therefore Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratārī Caitraratha, who were both learned in saṁvarga-vidyā, were a brāhmaṇa and a kṣatriya respectively, and in the subject of saṁvarga-vidyā they were also guru and disciple respectively. Raiṅka and Jānaśruti had the same relationship, and therefore Jānaśruti must have been a kṣatriya. In this way it is proved that a śūdra is not qualified to study the Vedas. Referring to the śruti, he again establishes this point. Sūtra 36