Kavi Gaṅgārāma has stated that Vrātyas are eligible for Upanayana, which is only for the purpose of learning śauca and ācāra.
He says that such an Upanayana is simply of the form of going near the Ācārya. He mentions a similar opinion of
[1/3]
MM Gāgābhaṭṭa, who in his nibandha text (?) agrees with such an Upanayana of Vrātyas and the like.
Ref.: A portion titled 'mlecchībhūtānāṃ śuddhivyavasthā' from his nibandha on Dharmaśāstra, commissioned by the former King of J & K Raṇavīrasiṃha. [2/3]
This seems to fit well with the professions/livelihoods mentioned for Vrātya Brāhmaṇas, for example.
When a Kirāta 'Vīradatta' was renamed 'Dvijavarman'
In Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa, there's the story of a Kirāta Vīradatta, who used to sell wood. He once got a part of the wealth that a thief had stolen & kept in the forest. With the suggestion of his wife +
he used the money to get wells, temples, and so forth constructed. Vīradatta dedicated all those to Brāhmaṇas, who were lead by Devarāta. Pleased by his deeds, the Brāhmaṇas named him 'Dvijavarman' and his wife 'Śīlavatī'. +
He also founded a place named Devarātapura, where he stayed to protect the Brāhmaṇas. When Dvijavarman died, he had to face repercussions because of using stolen wealth, and turned into vāyu for 12 years. +
From Śrī Bhāratī Tīrtha Mahāsvāmī (Śaṅkarācārya Śāradā Pīṭha)
Regarding the eligibility in Brahmavidyā of those who aren't eligible for Vedic sacrifices [Thread] +
"Vyāsa and Bhagavatpāda have taken exception to this extreme position and categorically stated that despite their disqualification to engage in sacrifices, they too can definitely practise +
certain alternative means such as repetition of a mantra, fasting and the worship of God. As these means do confer mental purity and can be resorted to by all, it is untrue that the path to knowledge and emancipation is ruled out for those ineligible for Vedic sacrifices." +
The story of Raikva and Jānaśruti seem as a counter-argument to the popular interpretation of Brahmasūtra ‘संस्कारपरामर्शात्’ (1.3.36).
Jānaśruti was given knowledge without a saṃskāra-like ceremony. He in fact got knowledge in lieu of giving riches to Raikva. +
As per Śrī Bhāratī Tīrtha Mahāsvāmī, Śaṅkarācārya of the Śāradā Pīṭha, Raikva didn’t receive knowledge by undergoing Brahmacarya and formally learning from a Guru. It is inferred that he used methods for knowledge which are widely accessible. +
Similar is with Gārgī Vācaknavī. Hence, although many commentators take the said Brahmasūtra to be asserting ineligibility of Śūdras from Brahmavidyā because it requires upanayana saṃskāra, brahmacarya & the like, the case of Jānaśruti & Raikva seem to go in another direction.+
The Mahābhārata verse 'श्रावयेच्चतुरो वर्णान्…' itself seems clear on the subject of letting all 4 varṇas hear Vedas if Brāhmaṇas are made to sit in the front row.
Śrī Karapātrī Svāmī has refuted such an interpretation by citing some verses from Mahābhārata. +
He finds it to be in contradiction with the verse 'मन्त्रः शूद्रे न विद्यते'. The complete verse is
'उक्तस्त्रयाणां वर्णानां यज्ञस्तस्य च भारत।
स्वाहाकारवषट्कारौ मन्त्रः शूद्रे न विद्यते॥'.
This verse is connected only with mantras which have 'svāhā' & 'vaṣaṭ'.+
Also, the context of the verse is performance of pākayajña. Hence, it does not contradict 'श्रावयेच्चतुरो वर्णान्…' as being an injunction of hearing of Vedas by all varṇas.
Then he cites 'न च तां प्राप्तवान् मूढः शूद्रो वेदश्रुतीमिव'. +
In this verse from the Ṛgveda (7.104), it is said that for the wise, true and false statements appear to compete with each other. Out of the two, the statement which is true and straight, is saved by Soma, while the one which is false is destroyed.+
What I understand from this is that Veda is never in opposition with the truth at any given period of time. If something has been stated by the Veda, which seems in opposition with any fact accepted today, it may be the fault of our understanding that the Veda appears so.+
This is why we see various ways in which statements from the Veda are interpreted by various honourable scholars. But there is a limit of the freedom of interpretation, that is, truth. Ādi Śaṅkarācārya has stated something of this sort in his commentary on Bhagavadgīta 18.66.+