Our Fundamental Error - Parts 10 and 11
Dennis Waite
dwaite at d...
Mon Mar 19 04:17:06 CST 2001
Final two parts follow. (Safer this way since I keep forgetting to post!)
Inferred
Earlier, the process of inference was explained as involving four aspects -
the 'locus' of the discussion, the 'conclusion' that will be reached, a
'basis' for the argument and an 'analogy'. The example used was ' whenever
there is smoke, there is fire'. (The full form used for the analysis was
'(we infer that) there is a fire on the mountain because we can see smoke,
just as in a kitchen there is always fire when we see smoke'). Shankara's
analysis of adhyaasa can be put into the first form by saying that 'wherever
there is transaction, there is adhyaasa'.
He uses the example of using grass to catch a cow. The cow comes to the
grass because, believing itself to be the body, it has notions such as 'I am
hungry and the grass will remove the hunger, giving satisfaction'. It is the
mistaken belief or adhyaasa 'I am the body' that causes the cow to come to
the grass, 'going after things conducive to happiness'. Conversely, if
instead of holding out grass, we take a stick to the cow, the cow senses
danger and moves off, 'going away from things causing unhappiness'. This is
again caused by the mistaken idea 'I am the body'. In fact, in this latter
case, it is the belief that 'I am this physical body' (as opposed to the
subtle body, which cannot be harmed by the stick).
This provides the 'analogy' for the inference. Man goes after things he
likes and avoids those that he dislikes, just as the cow comes to the grass
and runs away from the stick. The full form of the inference then becomes:
'(We infer that) all human activities are based on error, because all
activities can be considered as either going after or going away, just as in
the example of the cow with the grass or stick'. Human activity is the
'locus'; that it is based on adhyaasa is the 'conclusion; "all activities
are either coming towards or going away" is the 'basis'; the example of the
cow, grass and stick is the 'analogy'.
Implication of adhyaasa
In everything that we do, we make the error of confusing what is real with
what is unreal. We have a single experience but our understanding of it is
confused. It is just like the example of the rope and snake. In our
ignorance we have a single experience - there is a snake - but in fact two
things are being mixed up viz. a real rope and an unreal snake. When I say
'I know', we think there is a single entity - a 'knower' but in fact there
is a real, conscious self and unreal, inert thoughts. In the sentence "I am
a knower", 'I am' is the 'general' part, referring to a real, conscious and
existent being, while 'a knower' is the 'particular' part and is unreal. The
two aspects are confused and adhyaasa occurs. The changeless part (existence
and consciousness) belongs to aatmaa and the changing thought process
belongs to anaatmaa. The two are mixed up and the idea 'I am a knower' is
the result. Aatmaa cannot be a knower since it is changeless and thus cannot
go through a 'knowing process'; anaatmaa cannot be a knower since it is
inert. The two are mixed up to form a new entity, a 'knower', as a single
experience but this is adhyaasa. ...............end Part 10
Conclusion of adhyaasa commentary
This understanding is not simply of academic interest; it is the source of
the belief that we are mortal and thus brings about our fear of death and
consequent insecurity. This then generates our constant concern with food
and shelter etc. and hence our obsession with money. The fact is that money
can only provide comforts; the basic insecurity does not go away however
much money we may have. Adhyaasa thus directly gives rise to samsaara.
Because we believe we are limited, we are continually trying to get those
things we like in order to remove the perceived limitations. The belief
that we 'do' anything, that we are 'doers' is due to adhyaasa and such
actions result in the merits and demerits of karma and in samsaara. All of
the suffering, from birth through disease, old age and death results from
this fundamental error that we make. And so it will continue until the
ignorance that is the cause of adhyaasa is removed. Actions are only a
movement within nature, the 'play of the guuNaa'; there is no doer.
The mistake takes place at all levels. With the thought 'I am the knower',
the anaatmaa of the mind an intellect is superimposed upon the aatmaa. At
the level of perception, a statement such as 'I am blind' superimposes the
anaatmaa of the sense organ upon the aatmaa. At the level of the body, ideas
such as 'I am a man' superimposes the anaatmaa of the body upon the aatmaa.
All of these various ideas and deemed to be properties of the Self, thus
mixing up aatmaa and anaatmaa in a disastrous mistake.
And so it goes on. Because of the identification with the body, we become
entangled in relationships with 'others' and imaginary 'needs' for 'external
objects' etc. The aatmaa has no relationships (there is only the aatmaa) but
because of the adhyaasa, the roots of samsaara spread everywhere.
The solution is to remove the ignorance of the Self. Only this can have the
required effect - removing any other ignorance will not affect this. Any
amount of education or knowledge in other subjects will only result in an
educated samsaari, someone who is knowledgeable about the anaatmaa. The
error is in respect of the Self, so samsaara can only be removed by
knowledge of the Self.
The ignorance is not total. We already know that we exist and that we are
conscious, just as in the rope and snake metaphor, we know that 'something'
is there (if we did not there couldn't be any error). The aspect about which
I am still ignorant is that I am Brahman. When we talk about searching for
knowledge of Brahman, we are not endeavouring to find out about some new
thing called 'Brahman' but about coming to realise our true status as
Brahman. Whilst this true status is not understood, we exist under the
mistaken impression that we are 'individuals' or 'jiiva-s'. It is the
purpose of the Upanishads to remove this adyhaasa.
Herein lies the difference between Vedanta and many other religions,
together with science, that they begin with the assumption that we are
inferior or 'sinners' and that we have to better ourselves. We waste our
whole lives trying to improve our status. Vedanta tells us that this
assumption of an inferior status is mistaken; we do not have to try to
improve ourselves, we are already perfect, whole and without limitation of
any kind. We need to enquire into the nature of Brahman and thereby remove
our adhyaasa. ..................end Part
>From ken knight <hilken_98 at Y...>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:54:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Conversation with a 5 year old.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: ken knight <hilken_98 at Y...>
--- "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at b...> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, ken knight wrote:
>
> > Secondly I am making a plea to you although I am
> sure
> > that you do this already because you subscribe to
> this
> > site. Here in England, and it is probably the
> same in
> > USA, there is a 'hamburger generation' of young
> Asians
> > who know nothing of the Asian culture.
>
> Your words ring very true to me. I was born in
> Dartford, Kent and lived
> in England till I was 13 when we moved to the US. I
> still have some
> relatives there who I keep in touch with. You're
> right there is a
> hamburger generation. I was part of it. My mother
> would never have
> allowed that sort of food in the house but when I
> was with my friends,
> everyone was doing it -- you get the picture. I
> think that's true of my
> Gujarati friends. We had nothing against dharma or
> Gujarati culture but
> it all seemed so mysterious, far off and not
> terribly relevant to our
> current situation. I was lucky that like Mrs.
> Devaraj, my parents showed
> me by their example and by answering my questions
> what it meant to be
> dharmic. Unfortunately, many never get that chance.
> Elders often
> write off the younger generation or talk down to
> them and that is more
> destructive than anything "Western materialism" is
> capable off.
Thank you for picking this up. I am not talking
advaita here but observation of the play of change.
There is a further problem in this that is particular
for Asian families. There will be further integration
of the various communities but , like my many Sri
Lankan pupils at the moment, situations will arise
that will make them question their identity. In this
case it is a series of cricket matches beween Sri
Lanka and England. Also, although there will be
greater friendship there will always be a 'colour'
problem. Varna may be a word for caste and the
'colour' of one's subtle nature for those who
understand such things, but for the majority it
becames a means for maintaining separation. The
children of the hamburger generation will/ in fact
are, want to search out their roots. Their parents
have no knowledge and so they have to seek it for
themselves by returning as foreigners to India.
Exploited as tourists and unable to use the
appropriate language to ask significant questions they
really find themselves lost.
Coincident with this e-mail today I also had a letter
from India from a priest who has completed a year's
silence in the forest. He devoted this period of time
to the spiritual health of India which, in the towns
especially, is struggling with Western attitudes in
the young people.
I am sorry, this is not a discussion of advaita but
observations of the shadows upon the screen. The light
behind the shadows is there permanently and we all
need to help each other remember this.
Peace and Happiness
Ken Knight
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
>From Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:35:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Sri Rudram, Purusha Suktam etc
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 14:49:41 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at B...>
wrote:
>> This could be a
>> good incentive to start Vedic pAThashAlA here!
>>
>
>I think this is going to be the vital task for the various Hindu
>communities here in the coming years. In Jersey City there is a school
>called Al-Ghazali School which was started by Bangaldeshi and Pakistani
>Muslims to teach Koran etc. alongside the regular academic subjects.
>They recognize that if their religion is to survive in a foreign
>environment, education is the key. We are in general better-educated and
>more prosperous than they are so why can't we get our act together and do
>the same?
>
>A local company has the slogan "An educated consumer is our best
>customer." The same principle applies here. The problem Gujaratis and
>North Indians face is the low level of Dharmic literacy of the average
>person. When the yajaman can't tell the difference between correct Vedc
>pronounciation and babble, (or worse, showy theatrics) where is the
>incentive for the Shastris to improve their own level of knowledge? In
>contrast amongst the South Indian communities, there is in general a
>higher level of familiarity with shastras even amongst non-"professionals"
>and as a result, your Shastris tend to be more learned. Which in turn
>means the next generation retains more of their culture. We have to get
>that feedback loop going.
>
>To anyone reading this who is active in their local community please think
>about this.
The Indian community in the US is in general financially healthy (unless
you are suddenly feeling far less wealthy after the recent stock market
crash :-)). When Indians can build grand temples and employ several
priests, why is it so difficult to start a simple Veda-pAThashAla? If
you think of it, the resources needed to start one are less than what
may be spent over a decent temple. In fact, if we were to be very
economical, we could have the veda classes conducted in the temple
premises. The only extra expense, (even that can be avoided if the
regular temple priest agrees to teach part-time), is to get a couple
of upAdhyAyas from India.
The problem, as I see it, is not financial but is the lack of commitment
to Vedic education among the Indian community. They do not understand
that the very basis of all the nice temple activities they have is the
Veda. We have an ongoing Veda class in our local temple. How many Indians
send their children to the class? Zero. How many parents send their
children to participate in the weekly rudrAbhiSheka? Zero. What we get
are a few elderly people who seem to be interested. But in order for
Vedic learning to continue we need youngsters.
While the "hamburger kids" grow up, their parents would rather have
them learn some superficial Indian culture such as silly dancing/singing
to film tunes, but not the Veda. No wonder the kids think of all the Indian
stuff as some mumbo-jumbo that can be
>From vaidya_sundaram at i...
Subject: Re: Re: Sri Rudram, Purusha Suktam etc
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:34:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: vaidya_sundaram at i...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at b...>
> person. When the yajaman can't tell the difference between correct Vedc
> pronounciation and babble, (or worse, showy theatrics) where is the
> incentive for the Shastris to improve their own level of knowledge? In
> contrast amongst the South Indian communities, there is in general a
> higher level of familiarity with shastras even amongst
non-"professionals"
> and as a result, your Shastris tend to be more learned. Which in turn
> means the next generation retains more of their culture. We have to get
> that feedback loop going.
>
> To anyone reading this who is active in their local community please
think
> about this.
It is quite interesting that just a few weeks ago we started such an
endeavor in the Dallas area - the priest at the temple mentioned that with
a
number of people in this area wanting even simple services to be performed
for them could not, since there are very few in this area who actually do
it
(or even know!!). When the idea came up that some of us who do our nitya
karmas to take up simple acts of naimitta karmas, an argument has come up
whether the person who officiates will get "pratigraha dosham" - i.e., the
dosham (sin?) associated with taking of dakshina (alms?) for having
performed a ritual. Now, on the one side for the yajamaan, doing something
is way better than not doing at all; on the other hand, for the person who
tries to help out after regular work by performing it for them, there is a
dosham associated with the receiving of alms as dakshina for having
officiated in the ceremony for the yajamaan. How does one resolve this? It
is
our dharma to ensure that we do our nitya and naimitta karmas as reqd - is
it also our dharma to help the others when they cannot do their naimitta
karma as well? On a more realistic level, if people cannot do it since they
cannot find a priest, then soon, their kids (or even they themselves!) will
not do it even if there is one available.
Any suggestions or thoughts?
bhava shankara desikame
>From Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:50:45 -0500
Subject: Re: yugAdi (Re: bhaNe shivAnanda swAmi)
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 14:34:45 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at B...>
wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Ravisankar S. Mayavaram wrote:
>
>> Jaldhar:
>>
>> This is my understanding:
>>
>> Depending on where you were yugAdi was on 25th or 26th of this month.
>> And it is not solar, but lunar (chandramAna)
>>
>
>Thanks. I was under the impression that while Vikrama samvata is purely
>lunar, Shalivahana shaka is luni-solar and Yugadi (The Tamil
>pronounciation is Ugadi is it not?) was based on the vernal equinox a
>solar event. But it just occurred to me that the Vernal equinox was on
>the 20th.
>
>[...]
>>
>> Others can correct me if I am wrong. I find this perl script very
>> useful, as I can say the sa.nkalpa everyday with all details including
>> yoga and karana.
>>
>
>I'm in the process of taking a look at it. The author seems to have been
>learning perl at the same time so the code is a little hard to follow but
>it seems accurate. Maybe Anand could comment on its' accuracy?
I downloaded the perl script and tried it. First, the script does not
consider time zones and longitudes. So the sunrise time that you see
is local time which must be adjusted by you to appropriate time zone
such as EST, CST, etc. Second, the script does not use high accuracy
formulae for planetary longitudes. So the results are not all that
accurate. It may be a good program for basic use but if you want
something more fancy, it is better to go for more accurate sources.
See for example:
http://www.clearskyinstitute.com/xephem/download.html
This XEphem software can be downloaded and used for personal and
noncommercial purposes. Caveat: It does not run on Windows. You need
a Unix-like system such as Linux, AIX, FreeBSD, or Solaris.
>From Shuba <swamis at u...>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:48:55 -0500
Subject: Veda-patashala's and schools
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Shuba <swamis at u...>
Shri. Jaldhar and others,
When you say Veda-patasahala's, are you referring to the
traditional schools wherein the young brahmachari makes it his
complete education for many years, or the Sunday school variety
or like the Arab equivalent we have here in the California Bay
area?
The Arab equivalent is a regular private school teaching
everything an American private school does, but school extends
for another 1.5-2 hours after American schools close, to teach
Arabic and the Quran. "Moral Education" is a compulsory class
instead of classes like home science and such. All students
attending have to adhere to a modified Islamic dress code.
School vacations are centered not around Christmas but around
Eid, and Easter breaks are really Moharram breaks. School
cafeteria will serve _only_ halal stuff and the timings are
structured around prayer timings.
A Sanatana Dharma version of this concept appeals to me very
much, especially the idea of holidays coinciding with religious
festivals. It seems to be immensely beneficial because all the
kids in the child's class have time off at the same time and
since all the kids happen to be muslims, their parents need to
take time off so the kids are not home alone. So they end up
socializing with fellow muslims who are the only ones at home
at that time of the year anyway, and end up celebrating their
festivals in a grand scale as a close knit group. Even those on
the fringes of the religion who may not have really
participated in celebrating the festival end up participating
because of social circumstances.
Are there such Hindu schools in the US/outside India? I know
the Jiddu Krishnamurthi Foundation has schools in the UK and US
but I dont think they make it a explicit point to educate abt
Hinduism even though we used to have Veda classes and yoga
lessons every week at KFI, India.
Regards,
Shuba
!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!
There are two ways to slide easily through life:
To believe everything or to doubt everything;
Both ways save us from thinking.
-Theodore Rubin
________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag
>From "Ashish Chandra" <ramkisno at H...>
Subject: Re: What is Sannyasa according to Shankaracharya?
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:06:51 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Ashish Chandra" <ramkisno at H...>
>From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at b...>
>
>On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Ashish Chandra wrote:
>
> > As far as I know, Sannyas is an ashram. Adi Shankara entered into it
>just as
> > people enter into it these days. There is no difference in Adi Shankar's
> > sannyas and the Chaturth Ashram.
> >
>
>All worldly manifestations are of a lesser reality than Brahman -- even
>sannyasa and the Vedas themselves. Thus sannyasa as Shankaracharya
>understands it is something beyond the physical attributes of the fourth
>ashram.
>
Thanks for clarifying this. Even though I understood that Sannyas <>
Brahmavidya, I was under the impression that Adi Shankara was a proponent of
Sannyas as an ashram in order for one to be eligible for Brahma Vidya. This
is not saying that others are not eligible but only that if an aspirant
possesses the Saadhanaa Chaatushtyam => eligibility for Sannyas and that one
should proceed to the fourth ashram. (I think there was mention of this in
Shri Sadananda's discussion of the Sutra "Athato Brahmajijnaasa".) The danda
and kamandalu are perhaps ceremonial.
> > While entering into Sannyas, one enters into one of four statuses -
>Apaat,
> > X, Hansa, Paramhansa. I am forgetting what X is.
>
>According to Swami Vidyaranyas' Jivanmuktiviveka (following Manusmrti) the
>four types are bahudaka, kuchitaka, hamsa, and paramhamsa. apat refers to
>the "emergency" sannyasa people take when they are about to die.
>
Thanks again. I just remembered that that is what it was. I made a mistake
in recollection.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>From "Ashish Chandra" <ramkisno at H...>
Subject: Re: Sri Rudram, Purusha Suktam etc
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:11:53 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Ashish Chandra" <ramkisno at H...>
>From: Vaidya Sundaram <Vaidya_Sundaram at I...>
>
>It is quite interesting that just a few weeks ago we started such an
>endeavor in the Dallas area - the priest at the temple mentioned that with
>a
>number of people in this area wanting even simple services to be performed
>for them could not, since there are very few in this area who actually do
>it
>(or even know!!). When the idea came up that some of us who do our nitya
>karmas to take up simple acts of naimitta karmas, an argument has come up
>whether the person who officiates will get "pratigraha dosham" - i.e., the
>dosham (sin?) associated with taking of dakshina (alms?) for having
>performed a ritual. Now, on the one side for the yajamaan, doing something
>is way better than not doing at all; on the other hand, for the person who
>tries to help out after regular work by performing it for them, there is a
>dosham associated with the receiving of alms as dakshina for having
>officiated in the ceremony for the yajamaan. How does one resolve this?
Could you, or someone else, explain this pratigraha dosh? AFAIHH, pandits
take dakshina for any yajna they perform, at least in North India. My
ancestors were Apratigrahi brahmins - there is a whole section about them in
Brahamanotpattimartand.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:02:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: New member introduction: Sankaran Aniruddhan
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
namo namah.
My name is Aniruddhan and I am doing my MS in EE at the University of
Washington, Seattle since fall 2000. My brothers kartik and ganesh have been
members of the Advaita-L for some time now. I have been reading the archives
of the list for the last few months and I have gained a basic introduction
to Advaita from this. I hope to learn as much from future discussions on
this list as I have from the past ones.
Sruti smRti purANAnAm Alayam karuNAlayam
namAmi bhagavatpAda Sam.karam
>From "naresh cuntoor" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:45:44 -0500
Reply-To: n.cuntoor at l...
Subject: Rudra etc.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "naresh cuntoor" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Namaskara,
Anand Mahabhagah has made an interesting point. And I suppose its quite true.
In fact, I have tried to find a place where I can recite the Rudra periodically, in the DC-Maryland area. But I haven't been successful in my search. Perhaps Sri Sadananda who I notice is in Washington DC will have an answer...
If I may share an experience I had last week in the west coast. I was visiting San Fransisco when I chanced upon this Ashram where every evening they (mostly Americans...one or two Indians) participate in the "Fire Ceremony." Listening to the Americans sing (I say sing, not chant) "tryambakam yajamahe.." and other mantras was somewhat amusing. After that, a Sanskrit scholar from India, Dr. Sharma who is visiting would deliver a lecture on certain topics. But the ceremony itself had elements of Indian and the western culture.
Regards,
Naresh
--
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:35:16
Anand Hudli wrote:
>
>
>The problem, as I see it, is not financial but is the lack of commitment
>to Vedic education among the Indian community. They do not understand
>that the very basis of all the nice temple activities they have is the
>Veda. We have an ongoing Veda class in our local temple. How many Indians
>send their children to the class? Zero. How many parents send their
>children to participate in the weekly rudrAbhiSheka? Zero. What we get
>are a few elderly people who seem to be interested. But in order for
>Vedic learning to continue we need youngsters.
>While the "hamburger kids" grow up, their parents would rather have
>them learn some superficial Indian culture such as silly dancing/singing
>to film tunes, but not the Veda. No wonder the kids think of all the Indian
>stuff as some mumbo-jumbo that can be ignored.
>
>Anand
>
Get 250 color business cards for FREE! at Lycos Mail
http://mail.lycos.com/freemail/vistaprint_index.html
>From "Ashish Chandra" <ramkisno at H...>
Subject: Re: Sri Rudram, Purusha Suktam etc
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:14:45 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Ashish Chandra" <ramkisno at H...>
>From: Anand Hudli <anandhudli at H...>
>
>The Indian community in the US is in general financially healthy (unless
>you are suddenly feeling far less wealthy after the recent stock market
>crash :-)). When Indians can build grand temples and employ several
>priests, why is it so difficult to start a simple Veda-pAThashAla? If
>you think of it, the resources needed to start one are less than what
>may be spent over a decent temple. In fact, if we were to be very
>economical, we could have the veda classes conducted in the temple
>premises. The only extra expense, (even that can be avoided if the
>regular temple priest agrees to teach part-time), is to get a couple
>of upAdhyAyas from India.
>
Perhaps the goal of what comes out of a Vedic Pathshaala is the pursuance of
Varnaashrama dharma leading one to the final cosummation of all existence,
and not the eventual pursuance of secular jobs that we all are involved in.
The interest may be there amongst us but then we should really try to
eventually take to a life of varnaashrama. That is indeed going to be
difficult in any place outside India, or anywhere where Hindus are in a
minority. Getting a couple of upadhyayas from India may help in preserving
our values/culture but then we should also be inclined towards what it is
truly meant for.
ashish
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>From "Savithri Devaraj" <savdev at h...>
Subject: Re: Sri Rudram, Purusha Suktam etc
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:45:56 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Savithri Devaraj" <savdev at h...>
>The Indian community in the US is in general financially healthy (unless
>you are suddenly feeling far less wealthy after the recent stock market
>crash :-)). When Indians can build grand temples and employ several
>priests, why is it so difficult to start a simple Veda-pAThashAla? If
>you think of it, the resources needed to start one are less than what
>may be spent over a decent temple. In fact, if we were to be very
>economical, we could have the veda classes conducted in the temple
>premises. The only extra expense, (even that can be avoided if the
>regular temple priest agrees to teach part-time), is to get a couple
>of upAdhyAyas from India.
>
I guess we are lucky here. Our local temple here has veda parayana class
every saturday morning and sunday morning; and Lalitha sahasranaama class
every thursday afternoon for adults. The teacher is very knowledgeable and
has trained either in Sringeri or Kanchi (i forget). The adult classes have
atleast 20-30 people, although there are a couple of teenagers. He
encourages any one above the age of 12 to attend. He also teaches Sri Rudra
in a student's house, which I would love to attend when he starts next time.
There has regular shloka classes for kids every sunday afternoon.
Our chapter of Chinmaya Mission has Balavihar every sunday morning between
10 and 11:30am. There are atleast 205 children registered in about 12
balavihar classes. There were some kids on a wait list in September 2000.
There are parents who take yearly teaching assignments, with 2 teachers in
every class. We have Bhagavad Geetha chanting classes for the kids in the
morning between 9 and 10am. This year it is chapter 11, all 55 shlokas. The
kids have a recital competition in May.
I guess the problem is really with the adults, they are so tied up with
their jobs and chores, they are themselves not convinced in ensuring a
healthy wholesome spiritual development environment. They have to have their
priorities straightened first. Once the adults start this, the kids will
follow suit in no time. Instead of Mr. and Mrs. Empty Soul entertaining
other empty souls in a saturday evening party, they would do very well to
find a spiritual organization for the entire family. People drive from far
and wide for parties, but they hesitate to commit for regular sunday morning
classes. They don't know the secret - once the kids start attending these
classes, and meet their own desi children, they get hooked on it and drag
the parents to class every sunday. I know some kids who say they don't care
for the birthday parties anymore, but want to attend balavihar.
You see satsangha is very powerful.
Savithri
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: What is Sannyasa according to Shankaracharya?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:43:39 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
>>>>>>>I
happened to see a documentary on Dandi Swamis (I am presuming that these are
the Dandi Sannyasis). According to their tradition, they trace their
foundations to Adi Shankaracharya.
I disagree and would like to state that it is even older. The order was not
found by Shankaracharya.
>>>>>>The Dandi Swamis are all
Brahmins. They carry a staff (Danda) and never let it touch the ground,
ever.
I know, Swami Karapatra, one among the most prominent Dandi Swamins,
advocated that only a Brahmana is allowed to take Sannyasa. Though, I would
like to state, that Sureshwaracharya himself declared that a Brahmana, means
he who has realized Brahman. brahma vetti iti brahmanah.
>>>>As far as I know, Sannyas is an ashram. Adi Shankara entered into it
just as
people enter into it these days. There is no difference in Adi Shankar's
sannyas and the Chaturth Ashram.
I agree with you. But I mean the Sannyasa, which is discussed in the
Upanishads and Bhashyas, is not that one, which is obtained by a ritualistic
order.
>>>While entering into Sannyas, one enters into one of four statuses -
Apaat,
X, Hansa, Paramhansa.
Well, the first two, are bahudaka and Kutichaka.
>>>Paramhansa is the highest
order.
Is it really an order? or has it been changed in to an order?
>>>>>Vidvat Sannyas is of the type
Rishi Yajnavalkya entered into, where he had already achieved what was to be
achived, and still entered into Sannyas. The Vidvisha type is entered into
by those seeking liberation.
Let me clarify here that Ananda Giri (the best commentator on Shankara's
bhashyas) states very clearly in the commentary of Kena Upanishad Bhashya,
that "vividishaa sannyasa is that which is prescribed by the scriptures"
(i.e. that one which has been prescribed by the Shruti I have mentioned in
my last mail, that means the Sannyasa with Danda etc.) and "vidvat sannyasa
is that one which can not be prescribed the scriptures".
So, I would like to declare that it is Vidvat Sannyasa about which Acharya
Shankara is talking. Isn't it?
Vidvat means a self-enlightened person. Therefore, Vidvat Sannyasa in not
something which can be taken or given, it is a state of Being.
>>>>>AFAIK, there are differences between Advaita and Sri Vaishnava and
Dvaita
monks because of the role of karma each perceives in one's development. That
is perhaps why Advaita monks do not wear the Shikha and Yajnopavit.
But, according to the Veda, if they have entered the fourth Ashrama
(vividisha sannyasa), than they should have their Yajnopavita, same as the
Dandins have it on their Danda.
>>>>Brahma loka is obtained by excellent karmas
???????? For where did you get it?
>>>>and meditation on Saguna Brahman.
This is correct, and that is what a person, who has entered Chaturtha
Ashrama, is supposed to do.
>>>>It is
not necessarily the result of Sannyas.
Well, my dear, you are violating the statements of Shankaracharya. It is not
the result of Vidvat Sannyasa indeed, the result of that sort of Sannyasa is
Jivan Mukit. But it is the result of Vividishaa Sannyasa.
>>>>I have heard of not heard of there being a Sannyas wihout an initiation.
Vidvat Sannyasa is one. There is no initiation needed for it, as it can not
be ruled. Shankaracharya himself admits this state to be above the rules of
Scriptures.
>>>>initiation would mean entering the fourth ashrama.
The Sannyasa, I and Shankaracharya are talking about, is not fourth Ashrama.
It is above that.
Love and
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: What is Sannyasa according to Shankaracharya?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:54:54 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
>>>> All worldly manifestations are of a lesser reality than Brahman -- even
sannyasa and the Vedas themselves. Thus sannyasa as Shankaracharya
understands it is something beyond the physical attributes of the fourth
ashram.
Respected Jaldhar Ji, you have stated what was in my heart. Prostrations to
you.
>>>>I may be responsible for some confusion here. It was pointed out to me
that the proper word is vividisha not vidvisha as I used erroneously in my
earlier posts on Jivanmuktiviveka.
OOOO, vidvisha sannyasa = a sannyasa full of hatred.....LOL
>>>>>The paramhamsa is the type of the vidvan -- the knower of Brahman. The
other three types are vividisha -- seekers. As they are not yet
enlightened they are still subject to some restrictions though not as much
as the grhasthas.
I totally agree with you.
>>>>>>>Those who seek moksha but fail in the attempt in this lifetime will
be
reborn in the higher worlds such as Brahmaloka where presumably there will
be less interuptions and obstacles. In order to achieve brahmaloka by
means of karma and upasana they too must be performed for the sake of
moksha not for self-interest. So karmayogis also fall in this category.
I hope you mean, "nishkaama karmayogins" and people like Janaka etc.
>>>>>If one has renounced all worldly desires (no just sitting on your comfy
sofa and proclaiming "I am God") then ipso facto one is a sannyasi
regardless of whether one has had a formal diksha or not. But without the
grace of a sadguru acheiving moksha is likely to be a very hit or miss
affair.
I agree to the greatest extent.
>>>>To get back to the original question, I think the reason Shankaracharya
and his followers bore the danda even though ultimately they did not
believe it was necessary is because Advaita Vedanta is not just a nice
theory. It is also a practical means to acheive its'
goals.............etc........
Thank you very very much, Dear Jaldhar ji, for clarifying the point.
But, in that case, we are also forced to accept that Shankaracharya Bhagavan
must also have bore Yajnopavita? As the Shruti states it. What do you think?
And in that case, we are forced to accept that Shankaracharya himself was a
Dandi Sannyasin, like they are today. But, from where then did the system of
Paramahamsa sannyasa came (or those sannyasins, which don't have a danda and
are very common today). Is that sort of Sannyasa against the scriptures? (at
least if done without realization, as many do it).
Loving
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: What is Sannyasa according to Shankaracharya?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:01:09 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
>>>>>Thanks for clarifying this. Even though I understood that Sannyas <>
Brahmavidya,
Not only Brahmavidya, but aparoksha brahma saakshatkaara. Brahmavidya is
just the state of knowing the Upanishads, like many of us know them, but
brahma-jnaana is very different. Our knowledge or Brahmavidya, is objective
and not subjective. According to Shankara himself, objective knowledge, is
not true, if seen from an ultimate point of realization; but only objective
knowledge, which transcends all scriptures is the true knowledge, you very
own realization. He makes all this very clear in his best book (according to
my thinking), the vaakya bhashya of Kenopanishad. Brahmavidya is just a
means to brahma-jnaana (the knowledge of the Vedas), but indeed an only
means, there is no other.
Loving
>From "Savithri Devaraj" <savdev at h...>
Subject: Re: Rudra etc.
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:51:32 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Savithri Devaraj" <savdev at h...>
I thought I replied to this mail last evening, but it didn't show up.
> Namaskara,
>Anand Mahabhagah has made an interesting point. And I suppose its quite
>true.
> In fact, I have tried to find a place where I can recite the Rudra
>periodically, in the DC-Maryland area. But I haven't been successful in my
>search. Perhaps Sri Sadananda who I notice is in Washington DC will have an
>answer...
I live in the DC-Maryland area. You should try contacting Sri.Ananta
Krishnan, who lives in Virginia, but teaches at the Siva-VishNu temple here.
He is right now in India, but should be back in a couple of weeks. Please
let me know if I can be of any assistance.
Savithri
PS:Oops, I realized when I hit the reply button, the reciepient was only Sri
Naresh. Corrected to go to the list.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>From "Savithri Devaraj" <savdev at h...>
Subject: Re: Sri Rudram, Purusha Suktam etc
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:19:58 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Savithri Devaraj" <savdev at h...>
>It is quite interesting that just a few weeks ago we started such an
>endeavor in the Dallas area - the priest at the temple mentioned that with
>a
>number of people in this area wanting even simple services to be performed
>for them could not, since there are very few in this area who actually do
>it
>(or even know!!). When the idea came up that some of us who do our nitya
>karmas to take up simple acts of naimitta karmas, an argument has come up
>whether the person who officiates will get "pratigraha dosham" - i.e., the
>dosham (sin?) associated with taking of dakshina (alms?) for having
>performed a ritual. Now, on the one side for the yajamaan, doing something
>is way better than not doing at all; on the other hand, for the person who
>tries to help out after regular work by performing it for them, there is a
>dosham associated with the receiving of alms as dakshina for having
>officiated in the ceremony for the yajamaan. How does one resolve this?
There are many knowledgeable members in this list who can answer this
better.
The spirit of intention is at the heart of the matter. If you are so kind
enough to help a follower of dharma perform his duty by either officiating
the ceremony or reciting the needful, you might as well accept the dakshina
and contribute that to a good cause. There is dosha in this case only if you
think there is. Your intention is only to help the yajaman, not make a
livelihood out of it. Your accepting the dakshina will relieve him of his
duty, and you can just donate it to a local temple or a charitable
institution. My firm belief is that intention is the only thing that really
counts. There is no God out there deciding this for you, you yourself are
the arbitrator. The unresolved issues and results tend to accumulate in the
subconscious as vAsanas.
My 2cents.
Savithri
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>From Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:46:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Sri Rudram, Purusha Suktam etc
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:19:58 -0000, Savithri Devaraj <savdev at H...>
wrote:
>
>There are many knowledgeable members in this list who can answer this
>better.
>
>The spirit of intention is at the heart of the matter. If you are so kind
>enough to help a follower of dharma perform his duty by either officiating
>the ceremony or reciting the needful, you might as well accept the dakshina
>and contribute that to a good cause. There is dosha in this case only if
you
>think there is. Your intention is only to help the yajaman, not make a
>livelihood out of it. Your accepting the dakshina will relieve him of his
>duty, and you can just donate it to a local temple or a charitable
>institution. My firm belief is that intention is the only thing that really
>counts. There is no God out there deciding this for you, you yourself are
>the arbitrator. The unresolved issues and results tend to accumulate in the
>subconscious as vAsanas.
>
I agree with the spirit of this suggestion. Manu smR^iti talks of
pratigraha,which really means the qualification to accept gifts, and
which is restricted to only brAhmaNas, not other castes. But Manu
still warns: "pratigrahasamartho .api prasaN^gaM tatra varjayet.h",
even if a brAhmaNa who is well qualified, through his knowing the Veda,
to accept gifts, still he should not be attached to it. Also, Manu warns
that one should not accept gifts without knowing the rules of such
acceptance fully, even if one is afflicted by hunger. Certainly, one
should not accept gifts in return for some Vedic rite, if he is not
fully cognizant of what he is doing. These days, many people who
chant Vedic mantras and perform Vedic karmas do so without understanding
the significance of the mantras or the karmas. If such people accept
gifts, thinking that they indeed deserve them, then it will be harmful
to them. Plus, even among the brAhmaNa community, I have noticed that
some call themselves vaidika brAhmaNas and hence qualified to accept
daxiNA and others do not consider themselves so.
However, when there is a threat to dharma, there could be some leeway.
For example, we hear of the story of bhakta-ambarISha where he actually
breaks the fast of ekAdashI by sipping water even when he is supposed
to wait for his guest durvAsa muni. The dilemma faced by ambarISha is
this: 1) he is entertaining durvAsa muni on the day after the ekAdashI
fast and the guest has not eaten but has gone out temporarily for his
daily rites, and 2) ambarISha must break the ekAdashI fast within a
specified time in order to keep his vrata intact. Faced with this
dilemma, what ambarISha does is to sip some water. So he has not
really eaten without offering food to his guest, because water is
not considered to be food. At the same time he has broken the fast
because water can be considered to be food too!
So, even in this case, we should find some loophole (I mean loophole in
a good sense) in the laws governing acceptance of gifts. I think the
suggestion by Smt Devaraj is a good one. What one could do in helping
others perform homas, etc. is to accept gifts on behalf of some
worthy cause or organization (check made out to Org. X) and
donate the same promptly after the ceremony ("promptly" is important
because some people might pass on the gift after benefiting from it a
little themselves, for example a cash gift could be passed on after a
prolonged period). So, if one acts in this way, one can claim in this
case that he did not accept the gift while the yajamAna can claim that
he did, in fact, give the gift, as required by the rules. I must add that
I am not an authority on dharma-shAstra, so taking permission of someone,
say in Sringeri, kAshI, or other places, to use this "loophole" may be a
good
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: What is soma according to Shankara's philosophy
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 02:05:38 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E6_01C0B7F4.BFBB4BC0"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
------=_NextPart_000_00E6_01C0B7F4.BFBB4BC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Advaitins,
After reading the astonishing contents about "soma" (the sacred juice, the =
word is used very much in Rig-veda) on the Internet, I was very upset and I=
decided to search for it's true meaning, at least the meaning which was in=
the mind of the Rishis.
In the beginning I would like to state a Mantra from Rig-veda, which clarif=
ies to the greatest extent what our great seer meant by that word.
The Holy Seer Rishikaa Suryaa tells us, in her divine hymn of Rig-veda.
"those who grind a plant, they think we have drunken Soma. But the Soma whi=
ch is known to the hymns (of Rig-veda), no body drinks out of that" (Rig-ve=
da 10-85-3)
This clarifies to the greatest point that according to the Great Divine See=
rs of Rig-veda, soma is a very mysterious thing. What is it, I would try to=
make it a bit more explicit with some quotations from the Brahmanas and ot=
her Vedic books (as well Vedic grammars).
There are two systems to coin a word of the Vedas. The first and the oldest=
is the system of the Brahmanas and the Nirukta. The second is the system i=
ntroduced by later grammarians, like Panini, Vararuchi Katyayana and Patanj=
ali. If we coin the word "soma" with both systems, the outcome in brief is =
the same. But it is obvious, that the older system would be able to tell us=
more about the ancient mentality, than the later system, as the systems of=
Panini don't show much interest in Vedic Sanskrit. So, I started to search=
for an explanation of this word in the ancient system of the Brahmanas. I =
think, this would clear all the wrong understandings about the word.
The Madhyandina Shatapatha-brahmana (the Brahmana, which includes Brihadara=
nyaka Upanishad and is a sort of commentary to the Shukla Yajur-veda, Madhy=
andina Shakha) states, 'svaa vai ma esheti tasmaat somo naama" (3-9-4-22). =
"This is my own self, thus it is called soma". This means, the mentality th=
at "this (what ever is before me) is my own self and nothing different from=
me" is called "soma". The Brahmana shows that the word soma has been deriv=
ed from two words, "sva" (one's own self) and "me" (my).=20
Consider also the phrase of Brihadaryanyaka Upanishad, which includes the M=
ahavakya "aham brahmaasmi" - (1-4-10)
"This world was all Brahman, He knew himself that I'm Brahman, thus he beca=
me all this. Therefore, who ever among the Devas knows this, became That. I=
n the same way, all the Rishis and Manushyas. Seeing this Rishi Vamadeva sa=
id, (in Rig-veda), I'm manu, indeed I'm the sun. Therefore, who ever realiz=
es "I'm Brahman", he becomes all this, even invincible by the Devas (all sc=
holars or inner and outer organs, usual people are dominated by them). He b=
ecome the self of the Gods."
I'm Brahman =3D I'm all this, in other words, it is (me) my own (sva) self =
=3D soma.
We know that all the Gods, Rishis and Manushyas of Rig-veda are Soma-drinke=
rs, does this Brihadaranyaka Mantra not clarify the concept of Soma, as des=
cribed in the Brahmana above.
Now, what about the word "Rasa" (sweet juice), which is sometimes used toge=
ther with the word soma, as in "soma-rasa". For to make it clear, let us go=
to the Taittiriya Aranyaka of Krishna Yajurveda Taittiriya Samhita.=20
"That Atman is indeed rasa. That is why after realizing Atman, a person is =
full with Ananda (spiritual joy)...he who enters in this Supreme Self, beco=
mes fearless. But if he sees difference in it, he always fears..."
And then, read the next portion (if you have Taittiriya Upanishad, it is 2=
-7,8), what a great joy he gets, after having that Rasa.
This is now according to the old system of word-forming. According to the =
new system, as introduced to us by Panini and Patanjali etc. the word "soma=
" literally should mean, "the state of Ishwara Bhava", as the root "shu", f=
rom which the later system derives the word, means, Aishwarya or Iswara-nes=
s, according to Panini. So, in fact there is no difference in the outcome.
I'm writing this a bit in a brief, as I'm still searching, but I hope it w=
ould help you to understand the mentality of the great Vedic seer, behind t=
he word "soma". This is a very disputed word, and I think, now it should be=
come totally clear.
Loving Regards,
Siddhartha
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Om Shantih, Shantih, Shantih, Om
(Om Peace, Peace, Peace, Om)
=B0 "da da da" (Control your self! Give to others! Have compassion towards
all! - The three Vedic commandments)
=B0 =B0 my e-mail address: siddharthakrishna at v...
=B0 =B0 =B0 Like to read about Vedism? please visit:
http://www.geocities.com/vedism/ or
http://members.nbci.com/siddharthakrishna/
------=_NextPart_000_00E6_01C0B7F4.BFBB4BC0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3></=
FONT>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Dear=20
Advaitins,</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">After readi=
ng the=20
astonishing contents about "soma" (the sacred juice, the word is used very =
much=20
in Rig-veda) on the Internet, I was very upset and I decided to search for =
it's=20
true meaning, at least the meaning which was in the mind of the Rishis.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">In the begi=
nning I=20
would like to state a Mantra from Rig-veda, which clarifies to the greatest=
=20
extent what our great seer meant by that word.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">The Holy Se=
er=20
Rishikaa Suryaa tells us, in her divine hymn of Rig-veda.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">"those who =
grind a=20
plant, they think we have drunken Soma. But the Soma which is known to the =
hymns=20
(of Rig-veda), no body drinks out of that" (Rig-veda 10-85-3)</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">This clarif=
ies to=20
the greatest point that according to the Great Divine Seers of Rig-veda, so=
ma is=20
a very mysterious thing. What is it, I would try to make it a bit more expl=
icit=20
with some quotations from the Brahmanas and other Vedic books (as well Vedi=
c=20
grammars).</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">There are t=
wo=20
systems to coin a word of the Vedas. The first and the oldest is the system=
of=20
the Brahmanas and the Nirukta. The second is the system introduced by later=
=20
grammarians, like Panini, Vararuchi Katyayana and Patanjali. If we coin the=
word=20
"soma" with both systems, the outcome in brief is the same. But it is obvio=
us,=20
that the older system would be able to tell us more about the ancient menta=
lity,=20
than the later system, as the systems of Panini don't show much interest in=
=20
Vedic Sanskrit. So, I started to search for an explanation of this word in =
the=20
ancient system of the Brahmanas. I think, this would clear all the wrong=20
understandings about the word.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">The Madhyan=
dina=20
Shatapatha-brahmana (the Brahmana, which includes Brihadaranyaka Upanishad =
and=20
is a sort of commentary to the Shukla Yajur-veda, Madhyandina Shakha) state=
s,=20
‘svaa vai ma esheti tasmaat somo naama" (3-9-4-22). "This is my own s=
elf, thus=20
it is called soma". This means, the
mentality that "this (what ever is befo=
re=20
me) is my own self and nothing different from me" is called "soma". The Bra=
hmana=20
shows that the word soma has been derived from two words, "sva" (one's own =
self)=20
and "me" (my). </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Consider al=
so the=20
phrase of Brihadaryanyaka Upanishad, which includes the Mahavakya "aham=20
brahmaasmi" –<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>(1-4-10)=
</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">"This world=
was=20
all Brahman, He knew himself that I'm Brahman, thus he became all this.=20
Therefore, who ever among the Devas knows this, became That. In the same wa=
y,=20
all the Rishis and Manushyas. Seeing this Rishi Vamadeva said, (in Rig-veda=
),=20
I'm manu, indeed I'm the sun. Therefore, who ever realizes "I'm Brahman", h=
e=20
becomes all this, even invincible by the Devas (all scholars or inner and o=
uter=20
organs, usual people are dominated by them). He become the self of the=20
Gods."</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">I'm Brahman=
=3D I'm=20
all this, in other words, it is (me) my own (sva) self =3D soma.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">We know tha=
t all=20
the Gods, Rishis and Manushyas of Rig-veda are Soma-drinkers, does this=20
Brihadaranyaka Mantra not clarify the concept of Soma, as described in the=
=20
Brahmana above.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Now, what a=
bout=20
the word "Rasa" (sweet juice), which is sometimes used together with the wo=
rd=20
soma, as in "soma-rasa". For to make it clear, let us go to the Taittiriya=
=20
Aranyaka of Krishna Yajurveda Taittiriya Samhita. </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">"That Atman=
is=20
indeed rasa. That is why after realizing Atman, a person is full with Anand=
a=20
(spiritual joy)...he who enters in this Supreme Self, becomes fearless. But=
if=20
he sees difference in it, he always fears..."</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"> And t=
hen,=20
read the next portion (if you have Taittiriya Upanishad, it is 2-7,8), what=
a=20
great joy he gets, after having that Rasa.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"> This =
is now=20
according to the old system of word-forming. According to the new system, a=
s=20
introduced to us by Panini and Patanjali etc. the word "soma" literally sho=
uld=20
mean, "the state of Ishwara Bhava", as the root "shu", from which the later=
=20
system derives the word, means, Aishwarya or Iswara-ness, according to Pani=
ni.=20
So, in fact there is no difference in the outcome.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"> I'm w=
riting=20
this a bit in a brief, as I'm still searching, but I hope it would help you=
to=20
understand the mentality of the great Vedic seer, behind the word "soma". T=
his=20
is a very disputed word, and I think, now it should become totally clear.</=
P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Loving=20
Regards,</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Siddhartha<=
/P></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<BR>Om=20
Shantih, Shantih, Shantih, Om<BR>(Om Peace, Peace, Peace, Om)<BR>=B0 "da da=
da"=20
(Control your self! Give to others! Have compassion towards<BR>all! - The t=
hree=20
Vedic commandments)<BR>=B0 =B0 my e-mail address: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:siddharthakrishna at v...">siddharthakrishna at v...</A><B=
R>=B0 =B0 =B0=20
Like to read about Vedism? please visit:<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.geocities.com/vedism/">http://www.geocities.com/vedism/<=
/A>=20
or<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://members.nbci.com/siddharthakrishna/">http://members.nbci.com=
>From "S. V. Subrahmanian" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:49:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Sri Rudram, Purusha Suktam etc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "S. V. Subrahmanian" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
> >It is quite interesting that just a few weeks ago we started such an
> >endeavor in the Dallas area - the priest at the temple mentioned that with
> >a
> >number of people in this area wanting even simple services to be performed
> >for them could not, since there are very few in this area who actually do
Options (adding on to Sri Anandji's mail - I am not able append to his posting
because I have been getting postings in a random order of late - later ones
coming early etc.):
1. Accept only 1 cent as a token daxiNa. There can hardly be any material
benefit in 1 cent. So the receiver would not have really benefited by it. Nor
would the yajamana have violated by not giving daxiNa. If push comes to shove,
even that 1 cent can be dropped in a temple huNdi.
2. Shastras, I think are more worried about inapproprate daxiNa as opposed to
daxiNa per se. One has been highlighted by Sri Anandji where the receiver
should be worthy before accepting. But there is another inappropriateness
also, which is the worthiness of the giver. One should not accept daxiNa from
anybody and everybody. Obviously we are not good judges of such merits (people
may be good, but we cannot be sure about the means employed to earn the money).
So people who receive daxiNa, should make sure that they do the mAdhyAna
sandhyAvandanam where there is a mantra for the expiation of the sins of having
received from unworthy people (who might have earned money through dubious
means).
3. This was told by one of the priests in NY. Every act done in behalf of
others (religious karma) draws from our own reserve of puNya phala. The priest
used to say for eg., at the end of the pUjas there is the AshIrvAda mantras
where a priest recites verses like "lokAhA samastAhA sukhinO bhavantu" etc.
There might be a few other priests alongside who say "tatAsthu" meaning "so be
it". Just saying "tatAstu" for such good wishes consumes atleast 4 gAyatrIs of
puNya phala. I don't know how much of this is true. But it is a good idea
that people who receive daxiNa chant gAytarI regularly and more in number as a
protective influence incase anything is to go wrong.
4. In general it is imperative on part of both the priest and the yajamana to
do sandhyAvandanam regularly - for other karmas to accrue benefit.
Regards.
S. V. Subrahmanian.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:15:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: New member introduction: Manjunath . H . Bhajantri
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Hello,
I want to be member of this discussion forum.
I am undergraduate student at IIT Bombay
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:24:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: What is Sannyasa according to Shankaracharya?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Ashish Chandra wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying this. Even though I understood that Sannyas <>
> Brahmavidya, I was under the impression that Adi Shankara was a proponent of
> Sannyas as an ashram in order for one to be eligible for Brahma Vidya.
Put it this way. All jivanamuktas are sannyasis but not all sannyasis are
jivanamuktas. The idea is not that sannyasa isn't important but that the
quest for moksha doesn't stop just because one has take up te danda. In
fact it would be fair to say it has only seriously started then..
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:03:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: What is Sannyasa according to Shankaracharya?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Siddhartha Krishna wrote:
>
> I hope you mean, "nishkaama karmayogins" and people like Janaka etc.
>
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the term karmayoga as employed by
Shankaracharya automatically implies nishkaama? The difference between
karma and karmayoga is that karma is doe out of self-interest (money,
power, long life etc.) but karmayoga is done only out of duty and love of
God.
> believe it was necessary is because Advaita Vedanta is not just a nice
> theory. It is also a practical means to acheive its'
> goals.............etc........
>
> Thank you very very much, Dear Jaldhar ji, for clarifying the point.
> But, in that case, we are also forced to accept that Shankaracharya Bhagavan
> must also have bore Yajnopavita? As the Shruti states it. What do you think?
The traditional accounts say that Shankarachrya took sannyasa at age 8
but was this before or after his upanayana? I do not have any of the
texts of the digvijayas handy so I don't know for sure. If it was before
upanayana, than Shankaracharya might not have had to take up the external
symbols at all as technically he would not be belonging to any ashram.
(Like Shukadevaji.) Also isn't it said that even while a sannyasi, he
returned to perform his mothers shraddha?
> And in that case, we are forced to accept that Shankaracharya himself was a
> Dandi Sannyasin, like they are today. But, from where then did the system of
> Paramahamsa sannyasa came (or those sannyasins, which don't have a danda and
> are very common today). Is that sort of Sannyasa against the scriptures? (at
> least if done without realization, as many do it).
Here is a theory: In the Brahmasutras the names of various sages are
mentioned. In some cases Vyasji accepts their opinions, in others, he
rejects them. It's like scientific research. In order to discover a new
fact, maybe a 100 experiments will have to be performed. Of these maybe
95 will fail and 5 will provide useful information. To be scientific is
to be able to distinguish the failures from the successes. In the same
way maybe some of these Rshis came up with different ideas concerning
vairagya. So all these various forms dandi, tridandi, paramhamsa, etc.
developed in parallel. But over time it was discovered which ones were
more useful for mukti than the others. By the time of Shankaracharya (who
after all was not inventing something new but merely restating the ancient
truths in a systematic manner.) there was a wealth of experience to draw
upon so he could confidently instruct his pupils that the paramhamsa form
of sannyasa was the best while still acknowledging the existence of other
types.
Of course this is speculation on my part.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...
>From "Manjunath . H . Bhajantri" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:03:11 +0530
Subject: Re: New member introduction: Manjunath . H . Bhajantri
Reply-To: Manjunath H Bhajantri <shivnand at c...>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Manjunath . H . Bhajantri" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Hi all,
I have been studying adhyatma from many days. Long before
I had a great faith in the law of karma. But after studying
many other philosophical books, I am having one doubt.
In chandogya Upanishad a shloka comes.
"tat satyam, sah atma, tat tvam asi!"
Did the revered rishis taught it by hearing from their teachers,
or they knew that this is the truth.
But sometimes I find them contradicting each other.
Like in Kena there is a usage of word "Swarga".
-Manjunath.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:15:59AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Hello,
> I want to be member of this discussion forum.
> I am undergraduate student at IIT Bombay India.
>
> Thanx,
>
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:07:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: yugAdi (Re: bhaNe shivAnanda swAmi)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Anand Hudli wrote:
> I downloaded the perl script and tried it. First, the script does not
> consider time zones and longitudes. So the sunrise time that you see
> is local time which must be adjusted by you to appropriate time zone
> such as EST, CST, etc. Second, the script does not use high accuracy
> formulae for planetary longitudes. So the results are not all that
> accurate. It may be a good program for basic use but if you want
> something more fancy, it is better to go for more accurate sources.
>
But is it good enough to provide yoga, karana, etc. for samkalpa? Like
Ravi, I'd like to be able to do this properly if I can.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...
>From Prasad Sreekanta <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:50:36 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: strong doubt reg. diet
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Prasad Sreekanta <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Pranam all,
I apologise if this doesnt make sense in this forum.
but i have this conflict in my mind since a long time.
Being a vegetarian myself, i sometimes get to think,
" A human is basically what he is made up of, since
his thinking, attitude, action everything needs energy,
this energy is mainly derived from what he/she eats.
is it that a non-vegetarian can achieve many things that
a vegetarian cannot?, What would the sacred rishis preach,
how does it impact the aatma? what is good to follow.
If we were to summarize the vedic texts and preaching of
all the sacred gurus, can we arrive at a conclusion as what
we should eat and what we should not?"
As i understand, Vegetarian is plant origin, and non-vegetarian
is animal origin. Sometimes i have lost the argument due to the
fact that plants also have life and we are no better than people
who depend on animals for food.
Food is an essential component of all human beings and as
such i have put this topic on debate.
Let noble thoughts come from all parts of the globe.
hari
>From "Manjunath . H . Bhajantri" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:35:05 +0530
Subject: Re: strong doubt reg. diet
Reply-To: Manjunath H Bhajantri <shivnand at c...>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Manjunath . H . Bhajantri" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 09:50:36AM -0800, Prasad Sreekanta wrote:
> Pranam all,
> I apologise if this doesnt make sense in this forum.
> but i have this conflict in my mind since a long time.
> Being a vegetarian myself, i sometimes get to think,
>
> " A human is basically what he is made up of, since
> his thinking, attitude, action everything needs energy,
> this energy is mainly derived from what he/she eats.
> is it that a non-vegetarian can achieve many things that
There are many points why should be vegetarian
1. You harm no animals
Just imagine yourself how you would be feeling when
there is just a prick of a pin. The same holds here
animals have higher consciousness, they have emotions
and feeling of pain like us. They act instinctively
we humans have thinking power, so we must have to
be compassionate on them.
2. Research has proved that vegeterians are more
healthy, they suffer less from coronary diseases,
and cancers, and many other small diseases.
3. Human is a herbivorous if you analyse the anatomy of
humoun body.
> a vegetarian cannot?, What would the sacred rishis preach,
> how does it impact the aatma? what is good to follow.
Atma is independant of everything. All practices are only for the
purification of mind.
> If we were to summarize the vedic texts and preaching of
> all the sacred gurus, can we arrive at a conclusion as what
> we should eat and what we should not?"
Of course.
>
> As i understand, Vegetarian is plant origin, and non-vegetarian
> is animal origin. Sometimes i have lost the argument due to the
> fact that plants also have life and we are no better than people
Yeah plants have life but they dont have the feeling of pain as in
animals or humans, they are in lower form of consciousness.
I hope this will help somewhat
ciao,
Manjunath
--
A pat on back is just a few centimetres away from a kick
>From "Manjunath . H . Bhajantri" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:05:24 +0530
Subject: Re: What is Sannyasa according to Shankaracharya?
Reply-To: Manjunath H Bhajantri <shivnand at c...>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Manjunath . H . Bhajantri" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:03:50AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Siddhartha Krishna wrote:
>
> >
> > I hope you mean, "nishkaama karmayogins" and people like Janaka etc.
> >
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the term karmayoga as employed by
> Shankaracharya automatically implies nishkaama? The difference between
> karma and karmayoga is that karma is doe out of self-interest (money,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you rightly see, it is in other's interest that you do covet the
world. When you know that you are (chidananda rupa shivo aham)
I am a full of knowledge, bliss, and good, then why do we need these
objects.
So (nishkama) karma yoga is work for self-interest.
As long as we are in this world we must perform actions.
It is the inherent property of this world, it is cowards who
give up this world, and they perform neither this world's actions
nor the spirituality. (Note: For Jnani this world does not existent)
So don't take the example that Sri Shankara took sanyasa means you
can also take it.
> power, long life etc.) but karmayoga is done only out of duty and love of
> God.
>
> vairagya. So all these various forms dandi, tridandi, paramhamsa, etc.
If I am wrong please correct me,
ciao,
Manjunath.
--
Atma labhat anya labho na
>From Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:38:43 -0500
Subject: Re: yugAdi (Re: bhaNe shivAnanda swAmi)
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:07:19 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at B...>
wrote:
>But is it good enough to provide yoga, karana, etc. for samkalpa? Like
>Ravi, I'd like to be able to do this properly if I can.
I tried the perl script with bija first:
AD 2001 3 29 JD (at noon) = 2451998 Thursday
===============================================================================
Pancanga based on the Suryasiddhanta (at sunrise) local latitude = 40.75
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nirayana True Longitude | Lunar Month Names | Solar Month
Names
Sun 11s 14d 31' 18" |
Moon 1s 2d 9' 38" | Caitra Asvina | Mesa Tula
Mercury 10s 26d 34' 27" | Vaisakha Karttika | Vrsa
Vrscika
Venus 11s 8d 13' 42" | Jyaistha Margasirsa | Mithuna
Dhanus
Mars 7s 22d 57' 31" | Asadha Pausa | Karkata
Makara
Jupiter 1s 13d 36' 31" | Sravana Magha | Simha
Kumbha
Saturn 1s 2d 49' 38" | Bhadrapada Phalguna | Kanya Mina
Candrocca 9s 23d 56' 40" |
Rahu 2s 17d 41' 33" |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian date (luni-solar year and amanta month) (*) local sunrise... 5h 53m
year(atita):Saka 1923 |Vikrama 2058 |Kali 5102 | ayanamsa 22d 31m
Jovian(North):jaya(28) |Jovian(South):vRSa(15)
lunar month, paksa, and tithi(at sunrise):
Caitra Suklapaksa 4 (fraction = 0.969)
solar month and day: Mina 16 (samkranti: on 2001 3 14 at 15h 6m)
naksatra.... Krttika / karana...viSTi / yoga...prIti
NOTICE: if PURNIMANTA K-paksa month names appear a month earlier
===============================================================================
Next I ran it without bIja:
AD 2001 3 29 JD (at noon) = 2451998 Thursday
===============================================================================
Pancanga based on the Suryasiddhanta (at sunrise) local latitude = 40.75
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nirayana True Longitude | Lunar Month Names | Solar Month
Names
Sun 11s 14d 54' 16" |
Moon 1s 7d 20' 9" | Caitra Asvina | Mesa Tula
Mercury 10s 25d 38' 26" | Vaisakha Karttika | Vrsa
Vrscika
Venus 10s 25d 33' 43" | Jyaistha Margasirsa | Mithuna
Dhanus
Mars 7s 23d 5' 44" | Asadha Pausa | Karkata
Makara
Jupiter 1s 16d 56' 18" | Sravana Magha | Simha
Kumbha
Saturn 0s 27d 30' 40" | Bhadrapada Phalguna | Kanya Mina
Candrocca 9s 25d 41' 17" |
Rahu 2s 21d 4' 24" |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian date (luni-solar year and amanta month) (*) local sunrise... 5h 52m
year(atita):Saka 1923 |Vikrama 2058 |Kali 5102 | ayanamsa 22d 31m
Jovian(North):jaya(28) |Jovian(South):vRSa(15)
lunar month, paksa, and tithi(at sunrise):
Caitra Suklapaksa 5 (fraction = 0.369)
solar month and day: Mina 16 (samkranti: on 2001 3 14 at 5h 48m)
naksatra.... Krttika / karana...bava / yoga...prIti
Note how the longitude of the moon changes rather drastically between
the two methods. Note: The format for specifying longitudes is not
just degrees minutes and secs but in signs (s), degrees (d), minutes( ')
and seconds (") of arc. To convert a longitude to a degree from 0 -
360, just multiply the sign value by 30 and add the degree value.
For example, the longitude of the sun above is (330+14) = 344 degrees,
54 ' and 16 ".
For comparison, I ran a more accurate program (similar to Ephem) and
I got these results:
Enter date and time: 3.29.2001 10.75
date: 03.29.2001 at 10.750000 Universal time
Julian Day = 2451997.947917
Lahiri Ayanamsha = 23.874457
Planet nirayana longitude
Sun 344.9323183
Moon 37.0860214
Mercury 323.1895161
Venus 346.1137823
Mars 235.8490937
Jupiter 43.2986573
Saturn 33.6504901
mean Rahu 77.1799028
true Rahu 76.9458228
I ran this last program by finding out the sunrise first and then using
the sunrise time as input to the program.
Conclusions: Note that there is considerable difference in the longitudes
of planets between the more accurate version and the perl script version.
For basic panchanga calculations, including tithi, naxatra,
karaNa, and yoga, it is essential to have sufficiently accurate
values of the longitudes of the sun and moon. But the perl script
version's longitude for the moon is off by several minutes of the
arc. This typically happens because of the loss of accuracy resulting
from using only a few terms for the calculation of the moon's
longitude rather than a higher number of terms. Although, this might
not result in change of tithi, yoga, etc. in many cases, bear in
mind that there *can* be instances in which such changes do happen.
Further, if one were to be use the perl script, and if the tithi,
yoga, karaNa, etc. is required for a time of day different from
what is specified in the output, you may have to use interpolation
to get the values at the specified time.
As a practical note, I have seen several people just say "...shubha-tithau
---vAsara-yuktAyAM shubha-yoga-shubha-karaNa-shubha-naxatra ..."
during the saMkalpa, which should be fine. Better to be general than
specific but
>From "S. V. Subrahmanian" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:06:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: yugAdi (Re: bhaNe shivAnanda swAmi)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "S. V. Subrahmanian" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Just curious, since we are trying to get the latitudes and longitudes exactly
right for sankalpa, what do we say for the geographical location in the
sankalpa?
The priests at Flushing Temple NY say:
"...krouncha dvIpE, ramaNaka varshE, aindra kaNDE..."
May be for tristate area we can add:
"amerikA deshE, Hudson nadI paschima dig bhAgE" and probably a more closer
river to get the position right, as all the sankalpa is normally with reference
to rivers as far as geographical position is concerned.
The festival season will start in a few months, it might be helpful for
readers.
Regards.
S. V. Subrahmanian.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:25:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: New member introduction: R. Sudhir Kumar
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
namaste,
i was interested in Vedanta from my childhood but i could not study
about the same due to lack of time and now i think i have reached a point
in life where i have got to know about it so that i can control my life
and help my life get along well...,
i know that these values are very deep rooted and i respect the
same from the bottom of my heart.
i am a Tamilian settled in hyderabad,and i am presently working with
Tata Infotech,Mumbai.My parents and brother are in
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Vedism
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 02:15:26 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_014D_01C0B7F6.1E644720"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
------=_NextPart_000_014D_01C0B7F6.1E644720
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Advaitins,=20
Let me just tell you all one thing. Vedas are centered around the sun. As t=
he Veda states it, suryah aatma jagatah tasthushashca, surya is the self of=
every conscious or unconscious thing. Believe me, it is the greatest scien=
ce, it is the method to obtain the supreme state of consciousness. And the =
describer of this method is not somebody, not even God in the form of a Hum=
an, like Krishna etc. it is The Supreme himself. Do you think, in that case=
, any letter can be incorrect? Any concept can be incorrect? Rig-veda is th=
e most ancient book, it is the first book. It is the first document of know=
ledge, handed over in the beginning of the creation to the man for his pros=
perity, mental, physical, spiritual and on every other level. I promise you=
, my dear friend, any thing described in this book, is true on every level,=
may it be cosmological, physical or spiritual. The Rig-veda tells us that =
the moon takes 27 days for an orbit around the earth. It tells us, that the=
sun light consists out of 7 rays. It tells us that earth orbits around the=
sun. And it would tell us more than that, just a person is needed to look =
in to it.
The Kuran and the old testament (Bible) starts with condemning sun worshipp=
ing. This is a best proof that they all were sun worshippers. And once up o=
n a time this Vedic culture was prominent around the whole world. Look in t=
o the History, the sun worshippers were the most wealthiest folk. See, at t=
he Egyptians, Indians, Incas and so many others. They all were sun worshipp=
ers. And if you don't believe me, go to yahoo.com and search *sun worshippi=
ng*. Then try to read that what you get, you would find that once up on a t=
ime, the entire world was sun worshipper. Sun worshipping is the center of =
the Vedas. Every name Indra, Yama, Varuna etc. all they are just names of t=
he sun. Even Agni doesn't mean fire, but sun. Today the scholars wouldn't a=
ccept it, but I have proofs and NO BODY CAN REFUTE THEM. If you have a Gita=
, try to read the Shloka 9, 10, 11 of the 8th chapter, and you would unders=
tand what I mean. Just mind my words, this lost religion was the only true =
world religion and the religion of every body once up on a time. It is now =
our duty to rebuild it's structure and reintroduce it to the world. Without=
this, the world is heading towards destruction, total destruction. If this=
religion is not reintroduced, the earth is going to become Mars very soon,=
having lost all it's signs of life. The creator has been forgiving us till=
now, but till when? I think we should hear what he says in the Rig-veda. T=
he time has come. Well, this is our task and WE WOULD GAIN IT.
The entire Europe, America, Africa, Australia and Asia were sun worshippers=
. The only existing religion which is the most near to Rig-veda, is the Par=
asi religion, which some people think to be Muslims. Parsis are more Vedic,=
than the Hindu's of today. We have lost our true culture. Do you know, Ind=
ian lost the interest in the meaning of the Vedas, even before 1000 BC and =
there were very few people left, which knew the meaning. The rest were just=
reciting the Mantra, but had nothing to do with the meaning. And it was th=
ose people who wrote the Puranas etc. and made a joke out of this great cul=
ture. I would just say, in the words of the vedas "uttishthata jaagrata" ( =
=3D awaken! stand up!) and come back to the true religion, to the greatest =
religion, to the only religion of this world, to the religion of your ances=
tors. In the end, a prayer in the Vedic words, "I bow to those Rishi's, who=
were our ancestors and who made the path for us (for self realization)".
Our India is fortunate that those Great Rishi's lived in this country once =
up on time and inspired the whole world with their true knowledge, in a tim=
e when there were no computers and internet, like we do have today. More th=
an that, they realized this supreme science in the mountains of Himalayas, =
surely many of them in Kashmir. That is why this country was called "bhaara=
ta" (engaged in light =3D knowledge). Bhaarata was the world master and it =
would become the world master again. As soon as we become conscious about o=
ur true culture, there is nothing to hold us back from India becoming the m=
aster of the world. Note down these words.=20
"Shrinvantu vishve amritasya putraah =3D may all the sons of the immortal s=
upreme listen to me", says the Veda. Look at the word "vishva" used in it.
Just one question, we kill our selves on the frontier for our motherland, b=
ut is that only desha-bhakti. Is maatri-bhuumi only the ground and a piece =
of earth? I think, culture + land =3D our country. If our culture is not he=
re, than we are still aliens to our own land, isn't it. What have we done f=
or our culture? Are our mothers ready to give up there sons for this cultur=
e? I think they should. Not only for the land, but also for the culture. So=
, please open your eyes, wake up and stand up and do something, if you want=
to do something for your country.
There is a very nice saying, quoted in the commentaries of the Upanishads. =
"Among all the creators, human is the most fortunate, among humans a brahma=
na, among brahmana's a Veda follower".
A person who has the Vedas in his words, has the most effective, dominant, =
powerful words and is heard among thousand, as THE VEDAS ARE THE SUPREME TR=
UTH. (the Vedas tell us this).
You all are from a land, where all the Rishi's were living, you have the lo=
st and forgotten spirit in you. Do something, to awake it, to remember it. =
That is all, what I ask you, nothing more than that. Brahmanatvasya hi raks=
hanena rakshitah syaad vaidiko dharmah, says Shankaracharya. Only when Brah=
manatva would be preserved, the Vedic religion can be preserved. So preserv=
e it! Please, Please, Please..............
I think, we should even learn something from Hitler and Napoleon, how they =
changed the fortune of the World. Let us wake up and do something similar a=
s they did, but only in peaceful way. We have not to conquer the people and=
the nations, but the hearts. We are like Hanuman, we have forgotten out st=
rength and power, so we should remember it now and then regain it, which is=
preserved in our soul, as we are the successor of the greatest heritage in=
this world handed over by our ancestors in the form of the book of the Ved=
as.
This is not a dream, all this would become true. You would see. Our vedas s=
ay, diirgham pashyenmaa hrasvam. Look far, don't look near. The Veda has th=
e power to make this become true. I promise you...
Jayatu vedah, jayatu bhaaratam.
In the humble service of the Veda,
Siddhartha
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Om Shantih, Shantih, Shantih, Om
(Om Peace, Peace, Peace, Om)
=B0 "da da da" (Control your self! Give to others! Have compassion towards
all! - The three Vedic commandments)
=B0 =B0 my e-mail address: siddharthakrishna at v...
=B0 =B0 =B0 Like to read about Vedism? please visit:
http://www.geocities.com/vedism/ or
http://members.nbci.com/siddharthakrishna/
------=_NextPart_000_014D_01C0B7F6.1E644720
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><F=
ONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear Advaitins,</FONT> </FONT>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Let me just tell you all one =
thing.=20
Vedas are centered around the sun. As the Veda states
it, suryah aatma jaga=
tah=20
tasthushashca, surya is the self of every conscious or unconscious thing.=20
Believe me, it is the greatest science, it is the method to obtain the supr=
eme=20
state of consciousness. And the describer of this method is not somebody, n=
ot=20
even God in the form of a Human, like Krishna etc. it is The Supreme himsel=
f. Do=20
you think, in that case, any letter can be incorrect? Any concept can be=20
incorrect? Rig-veda is the most ancient book, it is the first book. It is t=
he=20
first document of knowledge, handed over in the beginning of the creation t=
o the=20
man for his prosperity, mental, physical, spiritual and on every other leve=
l. I=20
promise you, my dear friend, any thing described in this book, is true on e=
very=20
level, may it be cosmological, physical or spiritual. The Rig-veda tells us=
that=20
the moon takes 27 days for an orbit around the earth. It tells us, that the=
sun=20
light consists out of 7 rays. It tells us that earth orbits around the sun.=
And=20
it would tell us more than that, just a person is needed to look in to=20
it.<?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:of=
fice"=20
/><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The Kuran and the old testame=
nt=20
(Bible) starts with condemning sun worshipping. This is a best proof that t=
hey=20
all were sun worshippers. And once up on a time this Vedic culture was prom=
inent=20
around the whole world. Look in to the History, the sun worshippers were th=
e=20
most wealthiest folk. See, at the Egyptians, Indians, Incas and so many oth=
ers.=20
They all were sun worshippers. And if you don't believe me, go to yahoo.com=
and=20
search *sun worshipping*. Then try to read that what you get, you would fin=
d=20
that once up on a time, the entire world was sun worshipper. Sun worshippin=
g is=20
the center of the Vedas. Every name Indra, Yama, Varuna etc. all they are j=
ust=20
names of the sun. Even Agni doesn't mean fire, but sun. Today the scholars=
=20
wouldn't accept it, but I have proofs and NO BODY CAN REFUTE THEM. If you h=
ave a=20
Gita, try to read the Shloka 9, 10, 11 of the 8th chapter, and you would=20
understand what I mean. Just mind my words, this lost religion was the only=
true=20
world religion and the religion of every body once up on a time. It is now =
our=20
duty to rebuild it's structure and reintroduce it to the world. Without thi=
s,=20
the world is heading towards destruction, total destruction. If this religi=
on is=20
not reintroduced, the earth is going to become Mars very soon, having lost =
all=20
it's signs of life. The creator has been forgiving us till now, but till wh=
en? I=20
think we should hear what he says in the Rig-veda. The time has come. Well,=
this=20
is our task and WE WOULD GAIN IT.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The entire Europe, America, A=
frica,=20
Australia and Asia were sun worshippers. The only existing religion which i=
s the=20
most near to Rig-veda, is the Parasi religion, which some people think to b=
e=20
Muslims. Parsis are more Vedic, than the Hindu's of today. We have lost our=
true=20
culture. Do you know, Indian lost the interest in the meaning of the Vedas,=
even=20
before 1000 BC and there were very few people left, which knew the meaning.=
The=20
rest were just reciting the Mantra, but had nothing to do with the meaning.=
And=20
it was those people who wrote the Puranas etc. and made a joke out of this =
great=20
culture. I would just say, in the words of the vedas "uttishthata jaagrata"=
( =3D=20
awaken! stand up!) and come back to the true religion, to the greatest reli=
gion,=20
to the only religion of this world, to the religion of your ancestors. In t=
he=20
end, a prayer in the Vedic words, "I bow to those Rishi's, who were our=20
ancestors and who made the path for us (for self=20
realization)".<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Our India is fortunate that t=
hose=20
Great Rishi's lived in this country once up on time and inspired the whole =
world=20
with their true knowledge, in a time when there were no computers and inter=
net,=20
like we do have today. More than that, they realized this supreme science i=
n the=20
mountains of Himalayas, surely many of them in Kashmir. That is why this co=
untry=20
was called "bhaarata" (engaged in light =3D knowledge). Bhaarata was the wo=
rld=20
master and it would become the world master again. As soon as we become=20
conscious about our true culture, there is nothing to hold us back from Ind=
ia=20
becoming the master of the world. Note down these words. <o:p></o:p></SPAN>=
</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">"Shrinvantu vishve amritasya =
putraah=20
=3D may all the sons of the immortal supreme listen to me", says the Veda. =
Look at=20
the word "vishva" used in it.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Just one question, we kill ou=
r=20
selves on the frontier for our motherland, but is that only desha-bhakti. I=
s=20
maatri-bhuumi only the ground and a piece of earth? I think, culture + land=
=3D=20
our country. If our culture is not here, than we are still aliens to our ow=
n=20
land, isn't it. What have we done for our culture? Are our mothers ready to=
give=20
up there sons for this culture? I think they should. Not only for the land,=
but=20
also for the culture. So, please open your eyes, wake up and stand up and d=
o=20
something, if you want to do something for your country.<o:p></o:p></SPAN><=
/P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">There is a very nice saying, =
quoted=20
in the commentaries of the Upanishads. "Among all the creators, human is th=
e=20
most fortunate, among humans a brahmana, among brahmana's a Veda=20
follower".<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">A person who has the Vedas in=
his=20
words, has the most effective, dominant, powerful words and is heard among=
=20
thousand, as THE VEDAS ARE THE SUPREME TRUTH. (the Vedas tell us=20
this).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">You all are from a land, wher=
e all=20
the Rishi's were living, you have the lost and forgotten spirit in you. Do=
=20
something, to awake it, to remember it. That is all, what I ask you, nothin=
g=20
more than that. Brahmanatvasya hi rakshanena rakshitah syaad vaidiko dharma=
h,=20
says Shankaracharya. Only when Brahmanatva would be preserved, the Vedic=20
religion can be preserved. So preserve it! Please, Please,=20
Please..............<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I think, we should even learn=
=20
something from Hitler and Napoleon, how they changed the fortune of the Wor=
ld.=20
Let us wake up and do something similar as they did, but only in peaceful w=
ay.=20
We have not to conquer the people and the nations, but the hearts. We are l=
ike=20
Hanuman, we have forgotten out strength and power, so we should remember it=
now=20
and then regain it, which is preserved in our soul, as we are the successor=
of=20
the greatest heritage in this world handed over by our ancestors in the for=
m of=20
the book of the Vedas.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">This is not a dream, all this=
would=20
become true. You would see. Our vedas say, diirgham pashyenmaa hrasvam. Loo=
k=20
far, don't look near. The Veda has the power to make this become true. I pr=
omise=20
you...</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Jayatu vedah, jayatu=20
bhaaratam.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In the humble service of the=
=20
Veda,</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Siddhartha</SPAN><o:p></o:p><=
/P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </FONT><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<BR>Om=20
Shantih, Shantih, Shantih, Om<BR>(Om Peace, Peace, Peace, Om)<BR>=B0 "da da=
da"=20
(Control your self! Give to others! Have compassion towards<BR>all! - The t=
hree=20
Vedic commandments)<BR>=B0 =B0 my e-mail address: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:siddharthakrishna at v...">siddharthakrishna at v...</A><B=
R>=B0 =B0 =B0=20
Like to read about Vedism? please visit:<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.geocities.com/vedism/">http://www.geocities.com/vedism/<=
/A>=20
or<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://members.nbci.com/siddharthakrishna/">http://members.nbci.com=
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: How were Vedas seen by the Great Seers
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:37:36 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
I'm Bhagavan Shri Adi Shankaracharyas follower to the greatest extent. But I
personally also disagree with a bit of his philosophy and I think every
follower has the right to disagree with his master. Even the author of the
Bhamati commentary Vachaspati Mishra (one of the greatest scholars in
Shankara's tradition) disagrees with him regarding some details, i.e. in
precise we are not blind followers, neither was Shankara a blind follower of
the scripture, then why should we be his? We have got out own Sarama (the
goddess of intuition, i.e. buddhi, intellect), which seeks the lost rays in
the dark cave (if said in Rig-vedic terms). Even when God comes in the form
of a Human, he possesses human qualities, and one among them is to ignore or
forget something, which can lead in to a wrong statement, and that can
happen to everybody. But it is not like this in the case of the Vedas,
because they are not Human utterances, but they are celestial songs, voices
heard out in the universe or inside the body when you close your ears, and
not Human voices.
The process of realizing them is clarified in this way, like when an
ignorant person hears music, he don't perceive the seven notes and 21
sub-notes individually, but with a great and a hard practice of music, ones
ears are so toned, that it starts to perceive them individually. In the same
way, if we sit out side in the nature or if we close our ears with your
hands, we just hear a "hotchpotch" of sounds, but when done great austerity
and a great practice and leading a pure life to the greatest extent, than a
seer starts to perceive those voices individually and starts to perceive the
letters. Formed in a book, it becomes the Vedas.
This fact is proved from the fact that the entire grammatical system of
Sanskrit, starting from the first Grammarian Indra to the last Patanjali,
has been formed after the Vedas and the meanings of the grammatical roots
are coined according to the word used in the Vedas. In fact, Sanskrit
grammar is nothing more than trying to preserve the meaning of the Vedas, in
a psychological system. And that makes the Sanskrit Grammar the greatest
grammar existing in this world. This would become evident from a Brahmana
(shatapatha-brahmana), "Indra (the Grammarian) was prayed by the Devas
(scholars) to manifest (i.e. to make a grammar of) the unmanifested (having
no grammar, as the word "vyaakarana" = the sanskrit term from Grammar means
manifestation) voice (i.e. the Vedas), he agreed and then he broke each word
in to two (i.e. a root and suffix, or dhatu and pratyaya).
Would any scholar like to comment on it?
Loving Regards, Siddhartha
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Om Shantih, Shantih, Shantih, Om
(Om Peace, Peace, Peace, Om)
° "da da da" (Control your self! Give to others! Have compassion towards
all! - The three Vedic commandments)
° ° my e-mail address: siddharthakrishna at v...
° ° ° Like to read about Vedism? please visit:
http://www.geocities.com/vedism/ or
http://members.nbci.com/siddharthakrishna/
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Vedas and Advaita Vedanta
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:43:13 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0158_01C0B949.465FAB80"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
------=_NextPart_000_0158_01C0B949.465FAB80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=20
Vedas and Advaita Vedanta
Every name used in the Rig-veda is the name of the Sun, at least you can sa=
y it for the 99%. Different names for his different qualities. A mantra in =
the praise if Aditya states, "some call him Indra, Mitra, varuna and Agni, =
some suparna and garutman, but the truth is one, scholars name it different=
ly, some call him Yama and matarishwa". Where than a place for Paganism? Ek=
a eva rudro na dvitiyovatasthe =3D "there is only one Rudra, there doesn't =
exist a second."=20
In fact the mentality behind the sun was, suryah aatma jagatastasthushashca=
, surya is the self of the conscious and unconscious things. The problem is=
that those who condemn the Vedic system don't understand it the least, th=
at is why we don't have any cause to dislike them, we just pity for their i=
gnorance.
Look at this mantra, "with a golden disc the truth is covered, O Sun, take =
the disk away that I may be able to see the truth, O Pushan, O Yama, O Sury=
a, O Prajapatya, take away your rays, that I may be able to see your most r=
adiant form (even more than this one), which is the most blissful, that Pur=
usha which you are, I'm that too".
Purusha is the Vedic equivalent to the Brahman of the Upanishads. You would=
clearly see the concept of "Aham Brahmasmi" in the above stated Mantra. Br=
ahman litterely means the mightiest, or the all pervading and Purusha verba=
lly means the thing existing in every being. The following Mantra would mak=
e it more clear, "Purusha is all this, that which was existing and that whi=
ch is going to come in to existence. This is his mightiness, but the Purush=
a is even greater than this".
In the end, I would quote the mantra, "I know that great Purusha, which is =
the mightiest, and above darkness, about which it can be told only by the s=
un, only by knowing him one transcends the death, there is no other way for=
it". This is the secret of Sun worship. That only the sun is the direct ma=
nifestation of the Supreme and contains mostly all of the qualities of the =
Supreme, at least more than any other of his manifestation.
In the end, those who condemn the Vedic religion just see the outer sun, bu=
t the realization behind the sun was utterly different in the case of the R=
ishi's or Vedic seers. Looking in to the condemnation of sun worshipping in=
the old testament, also suggests that those people didn't understand this =
hidden secret in sun worshipping.
As the Rig-veda states it, "some see the voice (Vedic voice), but still the=
y don't see, some hear it, but still don't hear it, it is only one among th=
e chosen few, to whom this voice opens itself, as a newly married wife open=
s herself to her husband".
I think, Jesus Christ, being a self-enlightened great soul, understood this=
fact, and used the terms "my father" for the supreme God, which are simila=
r to the Vedic statements, "O you all the sons of the immortal supreme! Hea=
r unto me". And many things more than that, which have yet to be discovered=
by a Vedic Scholar.=20
Did you know that word Yahvah (I think, I don't need to tell you about this=
word, tettragrammaton, sorry I don't how to spell it) is frequently used i=
n the Vedas for the sun and Supreme. The word literally means the biggest, =
same meaning as the word Bhuman of the Upanishads has.=20
In the end I would like again to quote a Rik from the Rig-veda, "That, whic=
h resides in the letters of the Riks and which resides in the Highest space=
(in the form of the sun) and in which the entire universe and all the Deva=
s reside, if one doesn't know that, what is the use of the Riks to him? (i.=
e. each Vedic Mantra becomes meaningless to him)" (Note that Deva in plural=
means "rays", so it can't be translated with "Gods", as there is only one =
God).
All that which I have quoted here, are of the Vedas and not of the Upanisha=
ds, or later Veda related books.
Loving Regards,
Siddhartha
------=_NextPart_000_0158_01C0B949.465FAB80
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Vedas and A=
dvaita=20
Vedanta<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Every name =
used in=20
the Rig-veda is the name of the Sun, at least you can say it for the 99%.=20
Different names for his different qualities. A mantra in the praise if Adit=
ya=20
states, "some call him Indra, Mitra, varuna and Agni, some suparna and garu=
tman,=20
but the truth is one, scholars name it differently, some call him Yama and=
=20
matarishwa". Where than a place for Paganism? Eka eva rudro na dvitiyovatas=
the =3D=20
"there is only one Rudra, there doesn't exist a second." <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">In fact the=
=20
mentality behind the sun was, suryah aatma jagatastasthushashca, surya is t=
he=20
self of the conscious and unconscious things. The problem is that those who=
=20
condemn the Vedic system don't understand it the least, <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>that is why we don't have any caus=
e to=20
dislike them, we just pity for their ignorance.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Look at thi=
s=20
mantra, "with a golden disc the truth is covered, O Sun, take the disk away=
that=20
I may be able to see the truth, O Pushan, O Yama, O Surya, O Prajapatya, ta=
ke=20
away your rays, that I may be able to see your most radiant form (even more=
than=20
this one), which is the most blissful, that Purusha which you are, I'm that=
=20
too".<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Purusha is =
the=20
Vedic equivalent to the Brahman of the Upanishads. You would clearly see th=
e=20
concept of "Aham Brahmasmi" in the above stated Mantra. Brahman litterely m=
eans=20
the mightiest, or the all pervading and Purusha verbally means the thing=20
existing in every being. The following Mantra would make it more clear, "Pu=
rusha=20
is all this, that which was existing and that which is going to come in to=
=20
existence. This is his mightiness, but the Purusha is even greater than=20
this".<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">In the end,=
I=20
would quote the mantra, "I know that great Purusha, which is the mightiest,=
and=20
above darkness, about which it can be told only by the sun, only by knowing=
him=20
one transcends the death, there is no other way for it". This is the secret=
of=20
Sun worship. That only the sun is the direct manifestation of the Supreme a=
nd=20
contains mostly all of the qualities of the Supreme, at least more than any=
=20
other of his manifestation.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">In the end,=
those=20
who condemn the Vedic religion just see the outer sun, but the realization=
=20
behind the sun was utterly different in the case of the Rishi's or Vedic se=
ers.=20
Looking in to the condemnation of sun worshipping in the old testament, als=
o=20
suggests that those people didn't understand this hidden secret in sun=20
worshipping.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">As the Rig-=
veda=20
states it, "some see the voice (Vedic voice), but still they don't see, som=
e=20
hear it, but
still don't hear it, it is only one among the chosen few, to w=
hom=20
this voice opens itself, as a newly married wife opens herself to her=20
husband".<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">I think, Je=
sus=20
Christ, being a self-enlightened great soul, understood this fact, and used=
the=20
terms "my father" for the supreme God, which are similar to the Vedic=20
statements, "O you all the sons of the immortal supreme! Hear unto me". And=
many=20
things more than that, which have yet to be discovered by a Vedic Scholar.=
=20
<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Did you kno=
w that=20
word Yahvah (I think, I don't need to tell you about this word, tettragramm=
aton,=20
sorry I don't how to spell it) is frequently used in the Vedas for the sun =
and=20
Supreme. The word literally means the biggest, same meaning as the word Bhu=
man=20
of the Upanishads has. <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">In the end =
I would=20
like again to quote a Rik from the Rig-veda, "That, which resides in the le=
tters=20
of the Riks and which resides in the Highest space (in the form of the sun)=
and=20
in which the entire universe and all the Devas reside, if one doesn't know =
that,=20
what is the use of the Riks to him? (i.e. each Vedic Mantra becomes meaning=
less=20
to him)" (Note that Deva in plural means "rays", so it can't be translated =
with=20
"Gods", as there is only one God).<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">All that wh=
ich I=20
have quoted here, are of the Vedas and not of the Upanishads, or later Veda=
=20
related books.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Loving=20
Regards,</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: What is Sannyasa according to Shankaracharya?
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:13:46 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
> I hope you mean, "nishkaama karmayogins" and people like Janaka etc.
>>>>>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the term karmayoga as
employed by
Shankaracharya automatically implies nishkaama? The difference between
karma and karmayoga is that karma is doe out of self-interest (money,
power, long life etc.) but karmayoga is done only out of duty and love of
God.
You are absolutely right. But going back to the question, my question was
about the word "karma" used in your statement,
" In order to achieve brahmaloka by means of karma and upasana they too must
be performed for the sake of moksha not for self-interest." Because, I think
it is only Upasana, by which a person obtains brahmaloka, or is it karma
yoga also? I can not remember any clear statement of Bhagavan Bhashyakara at
present. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>>>>The traditional accounts say that Shankarachrya took sannyasa at age
8
but was this before or after his upanayana?
As much as I can remember, his Upanayana was performed when his holy self
was 5. Though I don't have at present any of the Shankara-Digvijayas,
neither of Vidyaranya, nor of Swami Kashikananda, but I read it once, and it
is that what I can remember for now. And it is also rational. Because
Bhagavan had learned the Vedas before he took Sannyasa, and that is not
possible without Upanayana. And I think, he also goes for Bhiksha, when he
recites Kanaka-dhaara-stotra, as a Brahmachaari.
>>>>>>If it was before upanayana, than Shankaracharya might not have had to
take up the external symbols at all as technically he would not be belonging
to any ashram.
I don't think, it was before upanayana. That only happened to Shukadeva
(according to the known history of India).
>>>Also isn't it said that even while a sannyasi, he returned to perform his
mothers shraddha?
That is a different thing, he promised her that before she allowed him to
take Sannyasa. Therefore, he had to come. Though the scholars of that time
were very much against it.
>>>>>Here is a theory: In the Brahmasutras the names of various sages are
mentioned. In some cases Vyasji accepts their opinions, in others, he
rejects them.
Well, mostly he rejects them and I don't have any recollection where he
really accepts them. He just tries to show their view. But his own view is
mostly different. Isn't it so?
>>>>It's like scientific research. In order to discover a new
fact, maybe a 100 experiments will have to be performed. Of these maybe
95 will fail and 5 will provide useful information.
Do you think, it was really so in the case of the Shruti's and Smritis. I
think they were rather just revealed to the seers.
>>>>>>>To be scientific is to be able to distinguish the failures from the
successes. In the same
way maybe some of these Rshis came up with different ideas concerning
vairagya.
To say that Rishis have different ideas, don't you think it would be against
the attempt of Shankaracharya to show that all the Rishis say the same thing
and their is only an apparent difference?
>>>>>>> So all these various forms dandi, tridandi, paramhamsa, etc.
developed in parallel. But over time it was discovered which ones were
more useful for mukti than the others.
And was it not known to Shankaracharya and other ancient Rishis, who were
Sarvajna?
>>>>>>>>By the time of Shankaracharya (who after all was not inventing
something new but merely restating the ancient truths in a systematic
manner.) there was a wealth of experience to draw upon so he could
confidently instruct his pupils that the paramhamsa form of sannyasa was the
best while still acknowledging the existence of other
types.
But he rather seems to reject them. And I mean the sannyasa described by
him, is very different from the Paramahamsa sannyasa given today.
Loving
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re:[strong doubt reg. diet] Vegetarianism in the Vedas
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:22:14 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Vegetarianism in the Vedas
Here is one Mantra from Rig-veda,
Brahmadvishe kravyaade ghorachakshase dveshah dhattam. (7-104-2).
"May we always dislike those, who hate the Vedas, eat meat, and have a
terrifying face".
Today we know that face shows the character of a person. If a person would
have a terrible character, like hating knowledge or good things (Dharma) and
killing animals for his own selfish nourishment, it would be visible on his
face very clearly. You would say, but there are many people, who eat meat,
but still are very handsome and good looking? Please be with them, you would
see their true face. You would see, how they really look. The outer face can
be made good-looking, with adding creams and many other things. But not the
inner face, I have many times see, how dirty it is.
Now, let us understand the mentality of the Great Vedic Seer. Vedism is a
culture for the community. It tells us about values, which make the
community cheerful and prosperous. Our community consists out of many
things, not only human, but also creatures. If a community wants to be
cheerful, it is needed that each understands the feelings of the next
person, each person respects the feelings of the next person, only then
people can live together, otherwise it even becomes difficult between two
people. Now, today we think that we are dominant on the creatures, we can
behave with them as we like, we don't remember that they are also a
manifestation of the same Supreme as we are. So, we don't respect their
feelings. But, I think we have to understand their value, their value for
the eco system and everything. Today, channels like The National Geographic
tell us much about it, how reef fishing is becoming dangerous for the
environment. Vedas give very much stress on the environment, so the seers
knew all these facts.
So, killing animals is not good for the environment and the eco system.
Meat is considered a Tamasic Food, and as food has a great influence on our
way of thinking or mind, so, meat eating makes our mind to think in a
tamasic or bad way. We start to behave like animals, cruel and more than
that, start to kill even humans. So, meat eating is not good for the mind.
Therefore Atharva-veda says, "kravyaad bhuutvaa vyadvari" (3-28-2), One
starts to go on the wrong path, after becoming a meet-eater.
"tamaamsi yatra gachchanti tat kravyaado ajigamam" (2-26-5), may the
meat-eaters go to that place, where darkness goes.
"daha kravyaadah" (5-29-11), O Agni! burn meat-eaters.
And there is much more in the Vedas, but it will take me time to find it.
And then, it is not at all good for health. Ask Doctors, they know how. I
have heard that in Europe most Highways have a signboard now,
Please
Stop
eating animals.
And in this way, westerners are coming back very fast to our religion.
Indians are still not understanding it, but let us pray for them that they
understand it.
Have you ever heard about a disease called "mad cow", if not, then look on
the internet and you would know what it is. What is it, the curse of God,
for eating too much meat. Thank god, people in the west are now stopping to
eat Go Mata.
Our Shastras say frequently, ahimsaa paramo dharmah, ahimsa (nonviolence) is
the greatest Dharma. This is a fundamental truth, on which the rest of the
religion is based.
According to Bhagavan Patanjali (the author of the Yoga System), it is the
first step for salvation or god-realization. According to him, it should be
unconditioned, i.e. not conditioned with time, locality or object. This
nonviolence is on three levels, mind, speech and body.
Loving
>From "naresh cuntoor" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:42:30 -0500
Reply-To: n.cuntoor at l...
Subject: Re: [strong doubt reg. diet] Vegetarianism in the Vedas
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "naresh cuntoor" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Namaskara,
Vegetarianism is good .. I agree... But are the reasons stated for teh choice right?
--
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:22:14
Siddhartha Krishna wrote:
>Vegetarianism in the Vedas
>
>Here is one Mantra from Rig-veda,
>Brahmadvishe kravyaade ghorachakshase dveshah dhattam. (7-104-2).
>"May we always dislike those, who hate the Vedas, eat meat, and have a
>terrifying face".
But in the Vedic times, animal sacrifice was a ritual in existence, wasn't
it? Doesn't this contradict the stress on Ahimsa...
>Today, channels like The National Geographic
>tell us much about it, how reef fishing is becoming dangerous for the
>environment. Vedas give very much stress on the environment, so the seers
>knew all these facts.
>So, killing animals is not good for the environment and the eco system.
But so is utilizing land for farming... We clear away vast extents of
forest land for the sole purpose of man's betterment. We deprive animals
of their home in the process.
>And in this way, westerners are coming back very fast to our religion.
>Indians are still not understanding it, but let us pray for them that>Have you ever heard about a disease called "mad cow", if not, then look
on
>the internet and you would know what it is. What is it, the curse of God,
>for eating too much meat. Thank god, people in the west are now stopping
to
>eat Go Mata.
I see only a very small percentage of population in the west that is
vegetarian. In fact, for us vegetarians, it can be quite a challenge to
find a place to eat out.
I see vegetarianism more as a practice, an outcome of the environment, of the society, of tradition.... I don't see any merit in trying to convince
people not to eat meat.
What I am saying is that ....do we need to invoke the Vedas to say why we are vegetarians? It is always possible to find ways of justifying vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism... However, is there a point to such an exercise? We don't eat meat...fine...lets keep it at that..
Regards,
Get 250 color business cards for FREE! at Lycos Mail
http://mail.lycos.com/freemail/vistaprint_index.html
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Indra and Vedanta
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:32:29 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0042_01C0BB0C.66687FA0"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C0BB0C.66687FA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In Rig-veda 8-1-15-2 Maharshi Brihaduktha, the son of the holy prophet Mah=
arshi Vamadeva tells us,
"O Indra! your battles (which are frequently described in the Vedas), are o=
nly Maya (illusion). You know this very well that you never had any enemy a=
nd you would never have anyone."
Indra is the Vedic equivalent of Atman. Yaska (in his Nirukta, the only boo=
k to understand the Vedas, one among the six vedangas) tells us many times,=
Indra is atman. He constantly fights with endless enemies. But if seen fro=
m a point of view of realization, there doesn't exist anything. This is wha=
t is meant by this Mantra.
The Supreme Fact according to the Brahmana Books is, "that is why those (se=
lf-realized people) say, there is no Deva and no Asura".
The highest truth described in the Vedas (according to Maharshi Durga, fore=
most commentator of Yaska's Nirukta) is, "even the creator is our speculati=
on, and therefore He is not eternal". I mean, when there is no creation, th=
an where is its creator?
But this statement is stated from the highest point of view, when a person =
is self-enlightened, and he realizes that this creation doesn't exist, till=
he doesn't realize this, a creator exists as well as a governor does.
Regards,
Siddhartha
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Om Shantih, Shantih, Shantih, Om
(Om Peace, Peace, Peace, Om)
=B0 "da da da" (Control your self! Give to others! Have compassion towards
all! - The three Vedic commandments)
=B0 =B0 my e-mail address: siddharthakrishna at v...
=B0 =B0 =B0 Like to read about Vedism? please visit:
http://www.geocities.com/vedism/ or
http://members.nbci.com/siddharthakrishna/
------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C0BB0C.66687FA0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>&n=
bsp;</FONT>In=20
Rig-veda 8-1-15-2 Maharshi Brihaduktha, the son of the holy prophet Maharsh=
i=20
Vamadeva tells us,
<P class=3DMsoNormal>"O Indra! your battles (which are frequently described=
in the=20
Vedas), are only Maya (illusion). You know this very well that you never ha=
d any=20
enemy and you would never have anyone."</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Indra is the Vedic equivalent of Atman. Yaska (in his=
=20
Nirukta, the only book to understand the Vedas, one among the six vedangas)=
=20
tells us many times, Indra is atman. He constantly fights with endless enem=
ies.=20
But if seen from a point of view of realization, there doesn't exist anythi=
ng.=20
This is what is meant by this Mantra.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>The Supreme Fact according to the Brahmana Books is, "=
that is=20
why those (self-realized people) say, there is no Deva and no Asura".</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>The highest truth described in the Vedas (according to=
=20
Maharshi Durga, foremost commentator of Yaska's Nirukta) is, "even the crea=
tor=20
is our speculation, and therefore He is not eternal". I mean, when there is=
no=20
creation, than where is its creator?</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>But this statement is stated from the highest point of=
view,=20
when a person is self-enlightened, and he realizes that this creation doesn=
't=20
exist, till he doesn't realize this, a creator exists as well as a governor=
=20
does.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Regards,</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Siddhartha</P></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<BR>Om=20
Shantih, Shantih, Shantih, Om<BR>(Om Peace, Peace, Peace, Om)<BR>=B0 "da da=
da"=20
(Control your self! Give to others! Have compassion towards<BR>all! - The t=
hree=20
Vedic commandments)<BR>=B0 =B0 my e-mail address: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:siddharthakrishna at v...">siddharthakrishna at v...</A><B=
R>=B0 =B0 =B0=20
Like to read about Vedism? please visit:<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.geocities.com/vedism/">http://www.geocities.com/vedism/<=
/A>=20
or<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://members.nbci.com/siddharthakrishna/">http://members.nbci.com=
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:34:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: ADMIN: Server problems
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Due to some server problems, the list and website were down for a good
part of this weekend. If you sent something and it didn't appear, wait
one more day and if it still doesn't appear on the list please resend.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:37:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: What is Sannyasa according to Shankaracharya?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Siddhartha Krishna wrote:
> You are absolutely right. But going back to the question, my question was
> about the word "karma" used in your statement,
> " In order to achieve brahmaloka by means of karma and upasana they too must
> be performed for the sake of moksha not for self-interest." Because, I think
> it is only Upasana, by which a person obtains brahmaloka, or is it karma
> yoga also? I can not remember any clear statement of Bhagavan Bhashyakara at
> present. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
I seem to recall it said in the Gitabhashya under karmaNaiva hi
saMsiddhimAsthitA janakAdayaH (3:20) The siddhi referred to is brahmaloka
not moksha which is only acheivable by jnana. But I don't have that text
handy right now so I could be wrong.
> I don't think, it was before upanayana. That only happened to Shukadeva
> (according to the known history of India).
>
Ok forget that whole line of thinking.
> >>>Also isn't it said that even while a sannyasi, he returned to perform his
> mothers shraddha?
>
> That is a different thing, he promised her that before she allowed him to
> take Sannyasa. Therefore, he had to come. Though the scholars of that time
> were very much against it.
>
But why "had to"? He could have made the argument that the promise was
also illusionary so not binding on a jnani but he didn't. I think this is
another illustration that a sannyasi can make the appearence of doing
karma when it is for the sake of another not himself.
> Well, mostly he rejects them and I don't have any recollection where he
> really accepts them. He just tries to show their view. But his own view is
> mostly different. Isn't it so?
>
Mostly, yes. But see for example 3.1.9-11. Rshi Karshnajini's view is
rejected and Rshi Badari's view is accepted.
>
> Do you think, it was really so in the case of the Shruti's and Smritis. I
> think they were rather just revealed to the seers.
>
> To say that Rishis have different ideas, don't you think it would be against
> the attempt of Shankaracharya to show that all the Rishis say the same thing
> and their is only an apparent difference?
>
No. One way to that would be to say these other paths cannot take you
all the way to mukti but they have partial validity and can take you part
of the way. And I believe that's what he does. That's why he doesnt
reject karma outright like the Buddhists.
> And was it not known to Shankaracharya and other ancient Rishis, who were
> Sarvajna?
>
Perhaps all the facts were there but the implications of those facts had
to be examined at length. This is the process of Mimamsa. All the
various views of the Rshis were gathered and compared and when a consensus
formed on a particular topic it became the siddhanta.
> But he rather seems to reject them. And I mean the sannyasa described by
> him, is very different from the Paramahamsa sannyasa given today.
Yes but he only teaches that rejection to those who are qualified to hear
it. The other forms are for those who are still working themselves up to
that level. I think this is why Shankaracharya deserves the title
jagadguru. Because he was able to give something to all levels of
aspirants not just a small elite.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:50:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: What is Sannyasa according to Shankaracharya?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Manjunath . H . Bhajantri wrote:
> If you rightly see, it is in other's interest that you do covet the
> world. When you know that you are (chidananda rupa shivo aham)
> I am a full of knowledge, bliss, and good, then why do we need these
> objects.
> So (nishkama) karma yoga is work for self-interest.
Well, true but that is using the word "self" in two different senses. So
let us abandon such a confusing word and use the terms ahamkara for
"small-s" self, and atma for "capital-S" Self. Karma is for the sake of
ahamkara and karmayoga is for the sake of atma.
> As long as we are in this world we must perform actions.
We "must"? Must we eat? Most people would say yes. Must we dig a hole
in our back gardens? Umm...most people would disagree. But these both
fall under the term work. So again it is too vague. What work "must" we
do? What can we omit?
> It is the inherent property of this world, it is cowards who
> give up this world, and they perform neither this world's actions
> nor the spirituality.
Well I didn't dig a hole today so I must be a coward. Did YOU dig a whole
today???
(Note: For Jnani this world does not existent)
Then how does a samsari become a jnani if he never cowardly abandons
samsara?
> So don't take the example that Sri Shankara took sanyasa means you
> can also take it.
>
Then when?
Our acharyas took the utmost pains to achieve precision in formulating
thoughts. Because only sound premises can lead to sound answers.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...
>From "V Chandrasekaran" <vchandra at a...>
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:58:47 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "V Chandrasekaran" <vchandra at a...>
Dear Members,
If one doesn't want to invoke vedas for convincing the world
of the merits of vegetarianism, here is a fact-based theory for
this purpose:
I have seen in National Geographic (a western magazine) this
following table of how much qty. of grains is spent to make 1 lb.
of each of the following items:
I only recollect the numbers from my memory... But I think the
crux of the matter is understandable.
1 lb. of bread - 1 lb. of grains
1 lb. of chicken - 2 lb. of grains (so much spent to feed the birds)
1 lb. of ham - 5 lb. of grains (so much spent to feed the pigs)
1 lb. of beef - 10 lb. of grains (so much spent to feed the cows)
From these factual numbers, we can see how grains is wasted for
the sake of variety of food and to savour the tongue of the
meat-eaters. If the demand for NV food reduces, then world would
have lot more grains to feed the so many poor people. And, we need
not worry about starving the birds and pigs and cows. Because God
created these creatures and He will take care of them. That's how
the eco-system had evolved without any human intervention till a
few milleniums ago.
Reg. vedic rituals involving sacrifices:
My vedic knowledge is practically nil. But I have understood
from scholars that the rituals of lore in which animals were
sacrificed were purely for sacrificial purpose and not for the
taste of the food. There is a difference. These rishis were not
regular meat-eaters like one would tend to think. They did sacrifice
for the sake of sacrifice and not to feed themselves or for taste.
If one gets contradictory thoughts about these ritualistic practices
in our dharma, he/she should think about this: If these rishis had to
starve, they can do so for time eternal without losing their powers
controlling all their senses consuming only air as food.
Can the meat-eaters of today or even we vege.ns. do this? No. So,
we shouldn't compare them leave alone question their propriety in
this regard. This is my humble opinion. Scholars may please correct
or add to these thoughts.
With regard to the issue of clearing of lands which Sri Naresh
has raised:
This is equally atrocious act perpetrated by humans. There is a
real-life example of how we humans presume about our intelligence
and perform something, only to be harshly reminded by the Mother Nature
as to who is the King:
The government thought it would behove well for the state revenue
if it expanded its shrimp/fish industry along the eastern coast near
bengal and orissa. But the beautiful sunderban forest was impeding
their cruel interest. They presumed that they have taken a great
intelligent decision and got down to work and cleared all the trees
and destroyed the Nature's beauty, and there established their
shrimp farm. But the geological system had already taken a grave
impact by this selfish mindless act of humans. Soon after this we saw
how the cyclone hit Orissa taking so many lives. Scientists lately
realised that if the Sunderban forest had stood its ground, the cyclone
would have weakened and wouldn't have hit the land so harshly. Nature
knew how to protect its creatures and hence created the beautiful forest
at the right place nourishing the forest for so many milleniums. But
humans dug their own graves by intervening in Nature's scheme of things.
It's heart-rending. Thousands of trees the lungs of the earth... how many
eons it would have taken for them to grow... but humans destroyed so
mercilessly in no time.
Do humans realise their folly yet?
With regards,
-chandrasekaran.
----- Original Message -----
From: Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV at b...>
To: Recipients of ADVAITA-L digests <ADVAITA-L at L...>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 10:49 PM
Subject: ADVAITA-L Digest - 31 Mar 2001 to 1 Apr 2001 (#2001-76)
> There is one message totalling 64 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. [strong doubt reg. diet] Vegetarianism in the Vedas
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:42:30 -0500
> From: naresh cuntoor <n.cuntoor at L...>
> Subject: Re: [strong doubt reg. diet] Vegetarianism in the Vedas
>
> Namaskara,
> Vegetarianism is good .. I agree... But are the reasons stated for teh
choice right?
> --
>
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:22:14
> Siddhartha Krishna wrote:
> >Vegetarianism in the Vedas
> >
> >Here is one Mantra from Rig-veda,
> >Brahmadvishe kravyaade ghorachakshase dveshah dhattam. (7-104-2).
> >"May we always dislike those, who hate the Vedas, eat meat, and have a
> >terrifying face".
>
> But in the Vedic times, animal sacrifice was a ritual in existence, wasn't
> it? Doesn't this contradict the stress on Ahimsa...
>
> >Today, channels like The National Geographic
> >tell us much about it, how reef fishing is becoming dangerous for the
> >environment. Vedas give very much stress on the environment, so the seers
> >knew all these facts.
> >So, killing animals is not good for the environment and the eco system.
>
> But so is utilizing land for farming... We clear away vast extents of
> forest land for the sole purpose of man's betterment. We deprive animals
> of their home in the process.
>
>
> >And in this way, westerners are coming back very fast to our religion.
> >Indians are still not understanding it, but let us pray for them
that>Have you ever heard about a disease called "mad cow", if not, then look
> on
> >the internet and you would know what it is. What is it, the curse of God,
> >for eating too much meat. Thank god, people in the west are now stopping
> to
> >eat Go Mata.
>
> I see only a very small percentage of population in the west that is
> vegetarian. In fact, for us vegetarians, it can be quite a challenge to
> find a place to eat out.
>
> I see vegetarianism more as a practice, an outcome of the environment, of
the society, of tradition.... I don't see any merit in trying to convince
> people not to eat meat.
>
> What I am saying is that ....do we need to invoke the Vedas to say why we
are vegetarians? It is always possible to find ways of justifying
vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism... However, is there a point to such an
exercise? We don't eat meat...fine...lets keep it at that..
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Get 250 color business cards for FREE! at Lycos Mail
> http://mail.lycos.com/freemail/vistaprint_index.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of ADVAITA-L Digest - 31 Mar 2001 to 1 Apr 2001 (#2001-76)
>
>From "V Chandrasekaran" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:58:47 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "V Chandrasekaran" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Dear Members,
If one doesn't want to invoke vedas for convincing the world
of the merits of vegetarianism, here is a fact-based theory for
this purpose:
I have seen in National Geographic (a western magazine) this
following table of how much qty. of grains is spent to make 1 lb.
of each of the following items:
I only recollect the numbers from my memory... But I think the
crux of the matter is understandable.
1 lb. of bread - 1 lb. of grains
1 lb. of chicken - 2 lb. of grains (so much spent to feed the birds)
1 lb. of ham - 5 lb. of grains (so much spent to feed the pigs)
1 lb. of beef - 10 lb. of grains (so much spent to feed the cows)
From these factual numbers, we can see how grains is wasted for
the sake of variety of food and to savour the tongue of the
meat-eaters. If the demand for NV food reduces, then world would
have lot more grains to feed the so many poor people. And, we need
not worry about starving the birds and pigs and cows. Because God
created these creatures and He will take care of them. That's how
the eco-system had evolved without any human intervention till a
few milleniums ago.
Reg. vedic rituals involving sacrifices:
My vedic knowledge is practically nil. But I have understood
from scholars that the rituals of lore in which animals were
sacrificed were purely for sacrificial purpose and not for the
taste of the food. There is a difference. These rishis were not
regular meat-eaters like one would tend to think. They did sacrifice
for the sake of sacrifice and not to feed themselves or for taste.
If one gets contradictory thoughts about these ritualistic practices
in our dharma, he/she should think about this: If these rishis had to
starve, they can do so for time eternal without losing their powers
controlling all their senses consuming only air as food.
Can the meat-eaters of today or even we vege.ns. do this? No. So,
we shouldn't compare them leave alone question their propriety in
this regard. This is my humble opinion. Scholars may please correct
or add to these thoughts.
With regard to the issue of clearing of lands which Sri Naresh
has raised:
This is equally atrocious act perpetrated by humans. There is a
real-life example of how we humans presume about our intelligence
and perform something, only to be harshly reminded by the Mother Nature
as to who is the King:
The government thought it would behove well for the state revenue
if it expanded its shrimp/fish industry along the eastern coast near
bengal and orissa. But the beautiful sunderban forest was impeding
their cruel interest. They presumed that they have taken a great
intelligent decision and got down to work and cleared all the trees
and destroyed the Nature's beauty, and there established their
shrimp farm. But the geological system had already taken a grave
impact by this selfish mindless act of humans. Soon after this we saw
how the cyclone hit Orissa taking so many lives. Scientists lately
realised that if the Sunderban forest had stood its ground, the cyclone
would have weakened and wouldn't have hit the land so harshly. Nature
knew how to protect its creatures and hence created the beautiful forest
at the right place nourishing the forest for so many milleniums. But
humans dug their own graves by intervening in Nature's scheme of things.
It's heart-rending. Thousands of trees the lungs of the earth... how many
eons it would have taken for them to grow... but humans destroyed so
mercilessly in no time.
Do humans realise their folly yet?
With regards,
-chandrasekaran.
----- Original Message -----
From: Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV at b...>
To: Recipients of ADVAITA-L digests <ADVAITA-L at L...>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 10:49 PM
Subject: ADVAITA-L Digest - 31 Mar 2001 to 1 Apr 2001 (#2001-76)
> There is one message totalling 64 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. [strong doubt reg. diet] Vegetarianism in the Vedas
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:42:30 -0500
> From: naresh cuntoor <n.cuntoor at L...>
> Subject: Re: [strong doubt reg. diet] Vegetarianism in the Vedas
>
> Namaskara,
> Vegetarianism is good .. I agree... But are the reasons stated for teh
choice right?
> --
>
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:22:14
> Siddhartha Krishna wrote:
> >Vegetarianism in the Vedas
> >
> >Here is one Mantra from Rig-veda,
> >Brahmadvishe kravyaade ghorachakshase dveshah dhattam. (7-104-2).
> >"May we always dislike those, who hate the Vedas, eat meat, and have a
> >terrifying face".
>
> But in the Vedic times, animal sacrifice was a ritual in existence, wasn't
> it? Doesn't this contradict the stress on Ahimsa...
>
> >Today, channels like The National Geographic
> >tell us much about it, how reef fishing is becoming dangerous for the
> >environment. Vedas give very much stress on the environment, so the seers
> >knew all these facts.
> >So, killing animals is not good for the environment and the eco system.
>
> But so is utilizing land for farming... We clear away vast extents of
> forest land for the sole purpose of man's betterment. We deprive animals
> of their home in the process.
>
>
> >And in this way, westerners are coming back very fast to our religion.
> >Indians are still not understanding it, but let us pray for them
that>Have you ever heard about a disease called "mad cow", if not, then look
> on
> >the internet and you would know what it is. What is it, the curse of God,
> >for eating too much meat. Thank god, people in the west are now stopping
> to
> >eat Go Mata.
>
> I see only a very small percentage of population in the west that is
> vegetarian. In fact, for us vegetarians, it can be quite a challenge to
> find a place to eat out.
>
> I see vegetarianism more as a practice, an outcome of the environment, of
the society, of tradition.... I don't see any merit in trying to convince
> people not to eat meat.
>
> What I am saying is that ....do we need to invoke the Vedas to say why we
are vegetarians? It is always possible to find ways of justifying
vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism... However, is there a point to such an
exercise? We don't eat meat...fine...lets keep it at that..
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Get 250 color business cards for FREE! at Lycos Mail
> http://mail.lycos.com/freemail/vistaprint_index.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of ADVAITA-L Digest - 31 Mar 2001 to 1 Apr 2001 (#2001-76)
>
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: What is Sannyasa according to Shankaracharya?
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 01:13:03 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0171_01C0BB12.113279E0"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
------=_NextPart_000_0171_01C0BB12.113279E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> I hope you mean, "nishkaama karmayogins" and people like Janaka etc.
>>>>>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the term karmayoga as
employed by
Shankaracharya automatically implies nishkaama? The difference between
karma and karmayoga is that karma is doe out of self-interest (money,
power, long life etc.) but karmayoga is done only out of duty and love of
God.
You are absolutely right. But going back to the question, my question was
about the word "karma" used in your statement,
" In order to achieve brahmaloka by means of karma and upasana they too mus=
t
be performed for the sake of moksha not for self-interest." Because, I thin=
k
it is only Upasana, by which a person obtains brahmaloka, or is it karma
yoga also? I can not remember any clear statement of Bhagavan Bhashyakara a=
t
present. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>>>>The traditional accounts say that Shankarachrya took sannyasa at age
8
but was this before or after his upanayana?
As much as I can remember, his Upanayana was performed when his holy self
was 5. Though I don't have at present any of the Shankara-Digvijayas,
neither of Vidyaranya, nor of Swami Kashikananda, but I read it once, and i=
t
is that what I can remember for now. And it is also rational. Because
Bhagavan had learned the Vedas before he took Sannyasa, and that is not
possible without Upanayana. And I think, he also goes for Bhiksha, when he
recites Kanaka-dhaara-stotra, as a Brahmachaari.
>>>>>>If it was before upanayana, than Shankaracharya might not have had to
take up the external symbols at all as technically he would not be belongin=
g
to any ashram.
I don't think, it was before upanayana. That only happened to Shukadeva
(according to the known history of India).
>>>Also isn't it said that even while a sannyasi, he returned to perform hi=
s
mothers shraddha?
That is a different thing, he promised her that before she allowed him to
take Sannyasa. Therefore, he had to come. Though the scholars of that time
were very much against it.
>>>>>Here is a theory: In the Brahmasutras the names of various sages are
mentioned. In some cases Vyasji accepts their opinions, in others, he
rejects them.
Well, mostly he rejects them and I don't have any recollection where he
really accepts them. He just tries to show their view. But his own view is
mostly different. Isn't it so?
>>>>It's like scientific research. In order to discover a new
fact, maybe a 100 experiments will have to be performed. Of these maybe
95 will fail and 5 will provide useful information.
Do you think, it was really so in the case of the Shruti's and Smritis. I
think they were rather just revealed to the seers.
>>>>>>>To be scientific is to be able to distinguish the failures from the
successes. In the same
way maybe some of these Rshis came up with different ideas concerning
vairagya.
To say that Rishis have different ideas, don't you think it would be agains=
t
the attempt of Shankaracharya to show that all the Rishis say the same thin=
g
and their is only an apparent difference?
>>>>>>> So all these various forms dandi, tridandi, paramhamsa, etc.
developed in parallel. But over time it was discovered which ones were
more useful for mukti than the others.
And was it not known to Shankaracharya and other ancient Rishis, who were
Sarvajna?
>>>>>>>>By the time of Shankaracharya (who after all was not inventing
something new but merely restating the ancient truths in a systematic
manner.) there was a wealth of experience to draw upon so he could
confidently instruct his pupils that the paramhamsa form of sannyasa was th=
e
best while still acknowledging the existence of other
types.
But he rather seems to reject them. And I mean the sannyasa described by
him, is very different from the Paramahamsa sannyasa given today.
Loving Regards,
Siddhartha
------=_NextPart_000_0171_01C0BB12.113279E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>> I hope you mean, "nishkaama karmayogins" and p=
eople=20
like Janaka etc.<BR>>>>>>>>>>> Correct me if =
I'm=20
wrong but doesn't the term karmayoga as<BR>employed by<BR>Shankaracharya=20
automatically implies nishkaama? The difference between<BR>karma and=
=20
karmayoga is that karma is doe out of self-interest (money,<BR>power, long =
life=20
etc.) but karmayoga is done only out of duty and love of<BR>God.<BR><BR><BR=
>You=20
are absolutely right. But going back to the question, my question was<BR>ab=
out=20
the word "karma" used in your statement,<BR>" In order to achieve brahmalok=
a by=20
means of karma and upasana they too must<BR>be performed for the sake of mo=
ksha=20
not for self-interest." Because, I think<BR>it is only Upasana, by which a=
=20
person obtains brahmaloka, or is it karma<BR>yoga also? I can not remember =
any=20
clear statement of Bhagavan Bhashyakara at<BR>present. Please correct me if=
I'm=20
wrong.<BR><BR><BR>>>>>>>>The traditional accounts say =
that=20
Shankarachrya took sannyasa at age<BR>8<BR>but was this before or after his=
=20
upanayana?<BR><BR>As much as I can remember, his Upanayana was performed wh=
en=20
his holy self<BR>was 5. Though I don't have at present any of the=20
Shankara-Digvijayas,<BR>neither of Vidyaranya, nor of Swami Kashikananda, b=
ut I=20
read it once, and it<BR>is that what I can remember for now. And it is also=
=20
rational. Because<BR>Bhagavan had learned the Vedas before he took Sannyasa=
, and=20
that is not<BR>possible without Upanayana. And I think, he also goes for=20
Bhiksha, when he<BR>recites Kanaka-dhaara-stotra, as a=20
Brahmachaari.<BR><BR>>>>>>>If it was before upanayana, th=
an=20
Shankaracharya might not have had to<BR>take up the external symbols at all=
as=20
technically he would not be belonging<BR>to any ashram.<BR><BR>I don't thin=
k, it=20
was before upanayana. That only happened to Shukadeva<BR>(according to the =
known=20
history of India).<BR><BR>>>>Also isn't it said that even while a=
=20
sannyasi, he returned to perform his<BR>mothers shraddha?<BR><BR>That is a=
=20
different thing, he promised her that before she allowed him to<BR>take=20
Sannyasa. Therefore, he had to come. Though the scholars of that time<BR>we=
re=20
very much against it.<BR><BR>>>>>>Here is a theory: In=
the=20
Brahmasutras the names of various sages are<BR>mentioned. In some cas=
es=20
Vyasji accepts their opinions, in others, he<BR>rejects them.<BR><BR>Well,=
=20
mostly he rejects them and I don't have any recollection where he<BR>really=
=20
accepts them. He just tries to show their view. But his own view is<BR>most=
ly=20
different. Isn't it so?<BR><BR>>>>>It's like scientific=20
research. In order to discover a new<BR>fact, maybe a 100 experiments=
will=20
have to be performed. Of these maybe<BR>95 will fail and 5 will provi=
de=20
useful information.<BR><BR>Do you think, it was really so in the case of th=
e=20
Shruti's and Smritis. I<BR>think they were rather just revealed to the=20
seers.<BR><BR>>>>>>>>To be scientific is to be able to=
=20
distinguish the failures from the<BR>successes. In the same<BR>way ma=
ybe=20
some of these Rshis came up with different ideas=20
concerning<BR>vairagya.<BR><BR>To say that Rishis have different ideas, don=
't=20
you think it would be against<BR>the attempt of Shankaracharya to show that=
all=20
the Rishis say the same thing<BR>and their is only an apparent=20
difference?<BR><BR>>>>>>>> So all these various forms=
=20
dandi,
tridandi, paramhamsa, etc.<BR>developed in parallel. But over =
time=20
it was discovered which ones were<BR>more useful for mukti than the=20
others.<BR><BR>And was it not known to Shankaracharya and other ancient Ris=
his,=20
who were<BR>Sarvajna?<BR><BR>>>>>>>>>By the time of=
=20
Shankaracharya (who after all was not inventing<BR>something new but merely=
=20
restating the ancient truths in a systematic<BR>manner.) there was a wealth=
of=20
experience to draw upon so he could<BR>confidently instruct his pupils that=
the=20
paramhamsa form of sannyasa was the<BR>best while still acknowledging the=20
existence of other<BR>types.<BR><BR>But he rather seems to reject them. And=
I=20
mean the sannyasa described by<BR>him, is very different from the Paramaham=
sa=20
sannyasa given today.<BR>Loving
>From "V Chandrasekaran" <vchandra at a...>
Subject: Maharshi Suddhananda Bharathi
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:47:02 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C8_01C0BB8C.292E4E50"
From: "V Chandrasekaran" <vchandra at a...>
------=_NextPart_000_00C8_01C0BB8C.292E4E50
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear members,
Can someone provide information as to where I can find details
about Maharshi Kavi Yogi Sri Suddhananda Bharathi ? I would also
appreciate if someone who is familiar with this spiritual magnate
provide a brief article of His life. This was the Yogi who was
closely devoted to Sri Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi. He also wrote a
Tamil biography "Sri Ramana Vijayam" sometime in 1930s.
Thanks,
chandrasekaran.
------=_NextPart_000_00C8_01C0BB8C.292E4E50
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" http-equiv=3DContent-Type=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>Dear members,</DIV>
<DIV> Can someone provide information as to where I can find=20
details</DIV>
<DIV>about Maharshi Kavi Yogi Sri Suddhananda Bharathi ? I would also</DIV>
<DIV>appreciate if someone who is familiar with this spiritual magnate</DIV=
>
<DIV>provide a brief article of His life. This was the Yogi who was</DIV>
<DIV>closely devoted to Sri Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi. He also wrote a</DIV>
<DIV>Tamil biography "Sri Ramana Vijayam" sometime in 1930s.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Thanks,</DIV>
<DIV>
>From "Savithri Devaraj" <savdev at h...>
Subject: Re: How were Vedas seen by the Great Seers
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 13:04:30 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Savithri Devaraj" <savdev at h...>
Namaste,
>I'm Bhagavan Shri Adi Shankaracharyas follower to the greatest extent. But
>I
>personally also disagree with a bit of his philosophy and I think every
>follower has the right to disagree with his master. Even the author of the
>Bhamati commentary Vachaspati Mishra (one of the greatest scholars in
>Shankara's tradition) disagrees with him regarding some details, i.e. in
>precise we are not blind followers, neither was Shankara a blind follower
>of
>the scripture, then why should we be his?
I am not exactly sure in which way you disagree with Sri.Shankara. That is
ok for right now because I am no scholar to comment on the philosophy of
Shankara or that of Vachaspathi Mishra.
However, I would like to say that all great teachers would like their
students and followers to question and understand their teachings. No good
teacher, let alone Sri.Shankara, would want his disciples to blindly follow
his teachings. Doing that, you would simply be trading one set of beliefs
and dogmas with another. As I understand, Sri.Shankara was all for following
the vedas in accordance with yukti(intellect) and anubhava(experience).
In support of the questioning intellect, a story comes to mind.
Once upon a time, Lord Brahma narrated " Atma is the pure blemishless being,
he has no defects, no old age, no death, no sorrow, no hunger, no thirst; he
is ever full of joy, he has no unfulfilled desires, he is the one to be
sought after, he is the one to realize, one can become immortal knowing
him".
Hearing this the Gods and the the asuras developed a desire to know the
aatma, knowing whom they could have all their desires fulfilled and reign
supreme for ever and ever. The Gods chose Indra and the asuras chose
Virochana to go learn the secret of the aatma from Lord Brahma, and then to
teach it to them.
Both Indra and Virochana stayed with Lord Brahma for 32 years, serving him
with the utmost reverence and maintaining perfect brahmacharya. When lord
Brahma was pleased with them, he asked them what they had come for. They
told him their wish to learn the secret of the aatma, knowing which they
would have no sorrow, no old age and ofcourse could attain immortality.
Lord Brahma pointed back to them and said: "Here, he who is seen with the
eyes itself is aatma, he is the deathless, fearless brahman." Indra and
Virochana went and saw themselves as a reflection both in water and then in
a mirror and asked Lord Brahma again: "It can be seen in the water, it can
be seen in the mirror, which among these is the aatma?" Lord Brahma replied
that the aatma could be seen everywhere. They saw themselves again and
explained to the Lord that they had seen themselves well, including their
nice dresses, their hair and even their fingernails. This repeated a couple
of times, and when they cut off their hair and nails, or changed their
clothes, they still said they saw themselves. So Lord Brahma said: "Then he
is the aatma, He is the fearless, deathless aatma". After hearing the guru's
words, both of them were filled with peace and went away knowing that they
knew the aatma. Lord Brahma said to himself under his breath, "He who
doesnot correctly understand the secret of the aatma and goes away with the
wrong knowledge will perish forever".
Virochana decided that all the times he saw himself in the reflection he saw
his body, so he decided that the body is the aatma. He went back to the
asuras and told them "The body is the aatma, he is the one to be worshipped,
the pleasures of the physical body are the ultimate pleasures". This became
the motto of the asuras - sense pleasures and bodily comforts.
Indra on the other hand argued with himself, how can it be that the
reflection is the aatma, if I am blind, my reflection will be blind too, if
I am handicapped, the reflection looks handicapped too, if my body is
destroyed, so will the reflection, how can this be the fearless deathless
aatma? He decided to go back to Lord Brahma and asked him all his doubts.
Then Lord Brahma disclosed the secret of the aatma in very clear terms. This
was later taught to all the Gods by Indra.
In the Guru's teaching, if a doubt should arise, we should make all attempt
to clarify it. We should not decide for ourselves that our understanding is
right, but patiently reclarify it again and again until we fully realize the
import of the teachings. If not, insead of gaining the benefit of the
teaching, we could reap the consequences of the misunderstanding.
This is a story Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswathi used in one of his
lectures to drive home the point of making sure that the students clarify
their understanding of the teachings without arriving at conclusions by
themselves. It is translated from a kannaDa periodical from a few years ago.
Namaste,
Savithri
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>From "Savithri Devaraj" <savdev at h...>
Subject: Sri Raama navami
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 13:29:08 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Savithri Devaraj" <savdev at h...>
Happy Raama navami to all,
In the viShNu sahasranaama Goddess Parvati asks Lord Siva:
Paarvathi uvaacha:
kenopaayena laghunaa viShNornaama sahasrakam
paThyathe paNDitairnityam shrottumicchamyaham prabhu
By what easy means do learned people daily recite the 1008 names of
Sri.viShNu, I like to hear that O Lord!
iishvara uvaacha:
Sri raama raama raameti rame raame manorame
sahasranaama tattulyaM raama naama varaanane
Lord Siva tells Paarvathi - O fair-faced one! Uttering 'Raama' once
is equal to saying viShNu's (or God's) name a thousand times. There is a
story that says Siva gave away all his 100,000 shlokas to the Gods, Demons
and the Humans, but he kept just 2 syllables to himself - that is raama.
Such is the importance of the name raama.
In South India, this time of the yeat is very hot. People invite friends and
relatives home for kosambari (- a dish made with split peas(?), cucumber,
coconut and lemon) and paanaka (a cool drink, almost like lemonade). Temples
provide the same to all devotees through out the day.
namaste,
Savithri
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:13:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Vedism (fwd)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
This was sent to yahoogroups instead of advaita-vedanta.org
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 15:40:11 -0000
From: kkameswaran at s...
To: advaita-l-owner at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Vedism
Friends,
I reproduce below the discourse of Kanchi Paramachaarya on the
topic " Sanathana Dharma -- The Universal Religion" as translated by
Sri RGK in the book Hindu Dharma, published by Bharatiya Vidya
Bhavan. This gives evidences for those statements made by Sri.
Siddhartha Krishna.
This chapter is available in the following link.
http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part2/chap2.htm
"In the dim past what we call Hinduism today was prevalent all over
the world. Archaeological studies reveal the existence of relics of
our Vedic religion in many countries. For instance, excavations have
brought up the text of a treaty between Rameses II and the Hittites
dating back to the 14th century B. C. In this, the Vedic gods Mitra
and Varuna are mentioned as witnesses to the pact. There is a
connection between the name of Ramesses and that of our Rama.
About 75 per cent of the names of places in Madagascar have a
Sanskritic origin.
In the Western Hemisphere too there is evidence of Hinduism having
once flourished there. In Mexico a festival is celebrated at the same
time as our Navaratri; it is called "Rama-Sita". Wherever the earth
is dug up images of Ganapati are discovered here. The Aztecs had
inhabitated Mexico before the Spaniards conquered that
land. "Aztecs " must be a distorted form of "Astikas". In Peru,
during the time of the holy equinox [vernal? ] worship was conducted
in the sun temple. The people of this land were called Incas: "Ina"
is one of the Sanskrit names of the sun god. Don't we call Rama
Inakula-tilaka?
There is book containing photographs of the aborigines of Australia
dancing in the nude (The Native Tribes of Central Australia, by
Spencer Killan, pages 128 & 129). A close look at the pictures,
captioned "Siva Dance", shows that the dancers have a third eye drawn
on the forehead.
In a virgin forest in Borneo which, it is said, had not been
penetrated by any human being until recently, explorers have found a
sacrificial post with an inscription in a script akin to our Granthas
characters. Historians know it as the inscription of Mulavarman of
Kotei. Mention is made in it of a sacrifice, the king who performed
it, the place where the yupas was installed. That the king gave away
kalpavrksass as a gift to Brahmins is also stated in this
inscription. All such details were discovered by Europeans, the very
people who ridicule our religion.
Now something occurs to me in this context, something that you may
find amusing. You know that the Sagaras went on digging the earth
down to the nether world in search of their sacrificial horse. An
ocean came into being in this way and it was called sagara after the
king Sagara.
The Sagaras, at last found the horse near the hermitage of Kapila
Maharsi. Thinking that he must be the man who had stolen the animal
and hidden it in the nether world they laid violent hands on him.
Whereupon the sage reduced them to ashes with a mere glance of his
eye. Such is the story according to the Ramayana. America, which is
at the antipodes, may be taken to Patala or the nether world.
Kapilaranya(the forest in which Kapila had his hermitage), we may
further take it, was situated there. It ia likely that Kapilaranya
changed to California in the same manner as Madurai is something
altered to "Marudai". Also noteworthy is the fact that there is a
Horse Island near California as well as an Ash Island.
Another idea occurs to me about Sagara and sagara. Geologists believe
that ages ago the Sahara desert was an ocean. It seems to me that
Sahara is derived from sagara.
Some historians try to explain the evidence pointing to the worldwide
prevalence of our religion in the past to the exchange of cultural
and religious ideas between India and other countries established
through travels. I myself believe that there was one common religion
or dharma throughout and that the signs and symbols that we find of
this today are the creation of the original inhabitants of the lands
concerned.
The view put forward by some students of history about the discovery
of the remnants of our religion in other countries- these relating to
what is considered the historical period of the past two or three
thousand years- is that Indians went to these lands, destroyed the
old native civilizations there and imposed Hindu culture in their
place. Alternatively, they claim, Indians thrust their culture into
the native ways of life in such a way that it became totally absorbed
in them.
The fact, however, is that evidence is to be found in many countries
of their Vedic connection dating back to 4, 000 years or more. That
is, with the down of civilisation itself, aspects of the Vedic
dharama existed in these lands. It was only subsequently that the
inhabitants of these regions came to have a religion of their own.
Greece had an ancient religion and had big temples where various
deities were worshipped. The Hellenic religion had Vedic elements in
it. The same was the case with the Semitic religions of the pre-
Christian era in the region associated with Jesus. The aborigines of
Mexico had a religion of their own. They shared the Vedic view of the
divine in the forces of nature and worshipped them as deities. There
was a good deal of ritual in all such religions.
Now none of these religions, including that of Greece, survives. The
Greek civilization had once attained to the heights of glory. Now
Christianity flourishes in Greece. Buddhism has spread in Central
Asia and in East Asia up to Japan. According to anthropologists,
religions in their original form exist only in areas like the forests
of Africa. But even these ancient faiths contain Vedic elements.
Religious and philosophical truths are often explained through
parables, stories, so that ignorant people can understand them
easily. Since metaphysical concepts are difficult to grasp, either
they have to be told in the form of a story or they have to be given
the form of a ritual, that is they must find expression as religious
acts. For the common people the performance of a rite is a means of
finding the truth present in it in the form of a symbol. I do not,
however, agree with the view that all rituals are nothing but
symbolic in their significance and that there is no need to perform
them so long as their inner meaning is understood.
Ritual as ritual has its own place and efficacy. Similarly, I would
not say that stories from the Puranas are nothing but illustrations
or explanations of certain truths or doctrines. As stories they are
of a high order and I believe that they really happened. But, at the
same time, they demonstrate the meaning of certain truths. As for
rites, their performance brings up benefits. But in due course, as we
learn to appreciate their inner meaning we shall become purified in
mind. This is the stage when we shall no more yearn for any benefits
from their performance and will be rewarded with supreme well-being
(that is, liberation).
It is likely, though, that, with the passage of time, some stories or
rites will become far removed from their inner meaning. Or, it may
be, the inner meaning will be altogether forgotten. So it must be
that, when new religions took shape abroad, after the lapse of
thousands of years-religions not connected with the Vedic faith that
is the root-the original Vedic concepts become transformed or
distorted.
You must be familiar with the story of Adam and Eve which belongs to
the Hebrew tradition. It occurs in the Genesis of the Old Testament
and speaks of the tree of knowledge and God's commandment that its
fruit shall not be eaten. Adam at first did not eat it but Eve did.
After that Adam too ate the forbidden fruit.
Here an Upanisadic concept has taken the form of a biblical story.
But because of the change in the time and place the original idea has
become distorted-or even obliterated.
The Upanisadic story speaks of two birds perched on the branch of a
pippala tree. One eats the fruit of tree while the order merely
watches its companion without eating. The pippala tree stands for the
body. The first bird represents a being that regards himself as the
jivatman or individual self and the fruit it eats signifies sensual
pleasure. In the same body (symbolished by the tree)
the second bird
is to be understood as the Paramatman. He is the support of all
beings but he does not know sensual pleasure. Since he does not eat
the fruit he natuarlly does not have the same experience as the
jivatman (the first). The Upanisad speaks with poetic beauty of the
two birds. He who eats the fruit is the individual self, jiva, and he
who does not eat is the Supreme Reality, the one who knows himself to
be the Atman.
It is this jiva that has come to be called Eve in the Hebrew
religious tradition. "Ji" changes to "i" according to a rule of
grammar and "ja" to "ya". We have the example of "Yamuna"
becoming "Jamuna" or of "Yogindra" being changed to "Joginder ". In
the biblical story "jiva" is "Eve" and "Atma" (or "Atman")
is "Adam". "Pippala" has in the same way changed to "apple". The Tree
of Knowledge is our "bodhi-vrksa". "Bodha" means "knowledge". It is
well known that the Budhha attained enlightenment under the bodhi
tree. But the pipal (pippala) was known as the bodhi tree even before
his time.
The Upanisadic ideas transplanted into a distant land underwent a
change after the lapse of centuries. Thus we see in the biblical
story that the Atman (Adam) that can never be subject to sensual
pleasure also eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. While our
bodhi tree stands for enlightenment, the enlightenment that banishes
all sensual pleasure, the biblical tree affords worldly pleasure.
These differences notwithstanding there is sufficient evidence here
that, once upon a time, Vedic religion was prevalent in the land of
the Hebrews.
Let me give the another example to srengthen the view that however
much a custom or a concept changes with the passage of time and with
its acceptance by people of another land, it will still retain
elements pointing to its original source. Our TiruppavaiT and
TiruvembavaiT are not as ancient as the Vedas. Scholars ascribe them
to an age not later than 1, 500 years ago. However it be, the authers
of these Tamil hymns, AndalT and ManikkavacakarT, belong to an age
much later than that of the Vedas and epics. After their time Hindu
empires arose across the seas. Even the Cola kings extended their
sway beyond the shores of the country. More worthy of note than our
naval expeditions was the great expansion in our sea trade and the
increase with it of our foreign contacts. As a result, people abroad
were drawn to the Hindu religion and culture. Among the regions that
developed such contacts, South-East Asia was the most important.
Islands like Bali in the Indonesian archipelago became wholly Hindu.
People in Siam (Thailand), IndoChina and the Philippines came under
the influence of Hindu culture. Srivijaya was one of the great
empires of South-East Asia.
[Here the Paramaguru briefly touches upon the stages representing the
emergence of various religions]. In primeval times the Vedic riligion
was prevalent everywhere: this was the first stage. In the second
stage new religions emerged in various parts of of the world. In the
third stage these decayed and their place was taken by Buddhism,
Christianity or Islam. In the subsequent stage the Hindu civilization
became a living force outside the shores of India also, particularly
in South-East Asia. This was the period during which great temples
reminding us of those of Tamil Nadu arose with the spread of our
religion and culture: Angkor-vat in Cambodia; Borobudur in Java,
Indonesia; Prambanan, also in Java. Now it was that our Tiruppavai
and Tiruvembavai made their passage to Thailand.
Even today a big festival is held in Thailand in December- January,
corresponding to the Tamil Margazhi, the same month during which we
read the Tiruppavai and Tiruvembavai with devotion. As part of the
celebrations a dolotsava (swing festival) is held. A remarkable
feature of this is that, in the ceremony meant for Visnu, a man with
the make-up of Siva is seated on the swing. This seems to be in
keeping with the fact that the Tiruppavai and Tiruvembavai contribute
to the unification of Vaisnavism and Saivism.
If you ask the people of Thailand about the Pavai poems, they will
not be able to speak about them. It might seem then that there is no
basis for connecting the that festival with the Pavai works merely
because it is held in the month corresponding to the Tamil Murgazhi.
But the point to note is that the people of that country themselves
call it "Triyampavai- Trippavai".
Those who read the Bible today are likely to be ignorant about the
Upanisads, but they are sure to know the story that can be traced
back to them, that of Adam and Eve. The Thais now must be likewise
ignorant about the Pavis but, all the same, they hold in the month of
Dhanus every year a celebration called "Triyampavai - Trippavai. " As
part of it they also have a swing festival in which figures a man
dressed as Siva. Here the distortion in the observance of a rite have
occurred during historical times- one of the distortions is that of
Siva being substituted for Visnu. Also during this period the Thais
have forgotten the Pavis but, significantly enough, they still
conduct a festival named after them. Keeping these before you, take
mind back to three thousand years ago and imagine how a religion or a
culture would have changed after its passage to foreign lands.
It is in this context that you must consider the Vedic tradition. For
all the changes and distortions that it has undergone in other
countries during the past millennia its presence there is still
proclaimed through elements to be found in the religions that
supplanted it.
How are we to understand the presence of Hindu ideas or concepts in
the religious beliefs of people said to belong to prehistoric times?
It does not seem right to claim that in the distant past our religion
or culture was propagated in other countries through an armed
invasion or through trade, that is at a time when civilization itself
has not taken shape there. That is why I feel that there is no
question of anything having been taken from this land and introduced
into another country. The fact according to me, is that in the
beginning the Vedic religion was prevalent all over the world. Later,
over the countries, it must have gone through a process of change and
taken different forms. These forms came to be called the original
religions of these various lands which in the subsequent period-
during historical times- came under Buddhism, Christianity or Islam
as the case may be. "
Copyright : Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, India.
Pranaams.
Kameshwaran
--- In advaita-l at y..., "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
wrote:
> Dear Advaitins,
>....
>
>
> "Shrinvantu vishve amritasya putraah = may all the sons of the
immortal supreme listen to me", says the Veda. Look at the
word "vishva" used in it.
>
The Veda has the power to make this become true. I promise you...
>
> Jayatu vedah, jayatu bhaaratam.
>
> In the humble service of the Veda,
>
>
>From Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:56:25 -0500
Subject: The Rig Vedic Ramayana - 6
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
rAmAya rAmabhadrAya rAmachandrAya vedhase |
raghunAthAya nAthAya sItAyAH pataye namaH ||
shrI rAmachandraparabrahmaNe namaH ||
I posted some articles on the mantra rAmAyaNa quite a while back but
have been negligent in continuing it. I am now making one more attempt
to continue it on this day, the birthday of shrI-rAma.
kushiilavau tu dharmaGYau raajaputrau yashasvinau |
bhraatarau svarasampannau dadarsha aashramavaasinau ||
sa tu medhaavinau dR^ishhTvaa vedeShu pariniShThitau |
vedopabR^ihmaNaarthaaya taavagraahayata prabhuh ||
kaavyaM raamaayaNaM kR^itsnaM siitaayaashcharitaM mahat.h|
paulastya vadhamityeva chakaara charitavrataH||
(vAlmIki-rAmAyaNa-bAlakANDa 1.4.5-7)
The princes, the brothers, Kusha and Lava, were knowledgeable about
Dharma and were glorious. Their voices were melodious and they lived
in the hermitage of (vAlmIki). He (vAlmIki), established in good deeds,
observed those two extremely intelligent (princes), skilled in the Vedas,
and for the sake of expounding the Vedas, he composed and made them study
the poem sampUrNa-rAmAyaNa (the entire rAmAyaNa) (containing) the great
story of sItA and the slaying of rAvaNa.
Since rAmAyaNa is based on the Vedas, there must be mantras in the
Vedas that correspond to the immortal story of rAma. The authors of
the epics and other literature based on the Vedas have drawn inspiration
from the mantras of the Vedas and have thus composed their respective
treatises. On the other hand, when we want to identify what specific
mantras of the Vedas the authors had in mind while composing their
works, we have to do something like reverse-engineering. It is with this
objective that nIlakaNTha, the great commentator on the mahAbhArata,
has presented, with his own wonderful commentary, the mantra-rAmAyaNa.
The mantra-rAmAyaNa is a compilation of Riks from the R^ig Veda that
narrate the story of rAma or the rAmAyaNa and that can thus be claimed
to be the basis for the same.
Previous articles on this topic are:
http://www.escribe.com/religion/advaita/m7539.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/advaita/m7544.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/advaita/m7556.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/advaita/m7565.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/advaita/m7580.html
Rig Veda: maNDala 10, sUkta 54,R^ik 1
-------------------------------------
tAM su te kIrtiM maghavan.h mahitvA yatvA bhIte rodasI ahvayetAm.h |
prAvo devAnAtiro dAsamojaH prajAyaitvasyai yadashikSha indra ||
O rAma (indra)! When the inhabitants of the Heaven and Earth, tormented by
the rAkShasas, called out to You (to appear on Earth) to help them, You had
earlier condemned Your attendants (door-keepers) Jaya and Vijaya (when they
had offended Sanat KumAra and others) to appear as rAvaNa and others, (even
though) You had protected them (before). In order to kill them (rAvaNa and
others) and to instruct other people about the varNa-Ashrama-dharma, You
assumed a human form and became a king.
nIlakaNTha says:
1. The word "rodasI" indicates the inhabitants of heavenly regions
and earth - dyAvA-pR^ithivIsthe praje.
2. These inhabitants called out to (invited) rAma - trAhiiti
AhvayetAM AhUtavatyau.
3. The word "dAsaM" here indicates attendants such as Jaya and Vijaya
were condemned by rAma's own power
- rAvaNAdirUpaM pUrvaM jaya-vijayAdi-saMGYaM svapArShadaM ojaH
ojasA sAmarthyena atiraH tiraskR^itavAnasi
Rig Veda: maNDala 5, sUkta 45, R^ik 6
-------------------------------------
A sUryo yAtu saptAshvaH kShetraM yad asyorviyA dIrghayAthe |
raghuH shyenaH patayad andho achA yuvA kavir dIdayad goShu gachchhan.h |
^^^^^^
(The inhabitants of heaven and earth invoked Ishvara thus:)
May the Ishvara (shyena) assume a human form in the sUrya-vaMsha of the
great, vast and excellent world. There, may He (apparently) assume the
annamaya sharIra, the gross or physical body, as a descendent of Raghu, and
walk the earth, youthful and wise. May He thus shine brilliantly and
protect us!
Rig Veda: maNDala 10, sUkta 1, R^ik 2
-------------------------------------
sa jAto garbho asi rodasyoragne chArurvibhR^ita oShadhIShu |
chitraH shishuH pari tamAMsyaktUn.h pra mAtR^ibhyo adhikanikradat.h gAH ||
O agni (the body of the Ishvara, rAma)! You are born between heaven and
earth, but not (as a result of the union) of the sperm and egg of a father
and mother! You assumed the form of the Agneya charu (oblation to gods in
yajna) through the (efforts of) the R^itviks and reached the mothers,
kausalyA and others, as a beautiful and wonderful
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:10:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: New member introduction: Ravi Baji
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
namaste,
i want to join in the advita list . I am studying undergraduate course in
IIIT Hydrabad INDIA. I have interest in advita philosophy , but i am
unable to find good material for reading .
I need help , to get good books related to advita (or indian philosophy in
general) , preferably in Telugu language. I would be greateful , if i get
help in finding them.
thanks
-
>From Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...>
--- ShrI V Chandrasekaran wrote:
{Parts of original post sniped for brevity}
> 1 lb. of bread - 1 lb. of grains
> 1 lb. of chicken - 2 lb. of grains (so much spent to
> feed the birds)
> 1 lb. of ham - 5 lb. of grains (so much spent to
> feed the pigs)
> 1 lb. of beef - 10 lb. of grains (so much spent to
> feed the cows)
This is the ecological argument for vegetarianism. It is
the
best by far, IMO. In fact, the meat industry is one of the
most polluting and highly toxic ( for the animals as well
as
the people ). It is also prone to diseases ( like the ones
currently ). If not for anything, people in the West
should avoid "industrialized" meat to send a message to the
industries to clean up their act.
> Reg. vedic rituals involving sacrifices:
This has been discussed before in this list. The opinion
seemed to be that the ONLY allowed meat consumption is that
of the animals sacrificed in a yajna.
I have had a few doubts regarding vegetarianism as
understood and practiced by us.
1. Is "vegetarianism" the correct word to describe our
dietary policy?
This word seems to indicate that by avoiding meat, we
are somehow in accrodance with our scriptures. But, from
what I have seen and learned there is more to our
dietary policy than just meat avoidance.
The correct word should be "sattvic" diet. In fact, the
dietary restrictions and other practices like speech
control, prayer, shama, dama etc. are to effect
chitta-shuddhi and to lead us to the sattvic state which
is most conducive to attaining moksha, No?
Alas, there is no satisfactory translation of "sattvic"
in English. Hence, the "sattvic" ideal has been watered
down to "vegetarianism". The reason I oppose this word
is because there seems to be a pernicious belief within
our community that by just avoiding meat, we are in
conformity with the shastras. I would like clarification
on the following points.
a) The typical Indian vegetarian diet has a lot of
calories by way of oil, ghee, dalda etc.
Besides being very unhealthy, greasy food is not
sattvic. Among Indians in the middle-class and above
obesity is the foremost health risk!
b) We also consume excess carbohydrates. Especially,
S. Indian brahmins, who are known to eat rice three
times a day. If not rice, it is Idly, dosa etc. which
are just as packed with carbo-s. It is not surprising
that S. Indians have the highest incidence of
diabetes
in the world!
c) While adhering to the "vegetarian" norm, we Indians
( even Brahmins ) consume caffeinated drinks such as
coffee, tea etc. Did our ancestors do this?
How is it OK for us to do so?
d) We have also adopted various "foreign" "vegetables"
in
our diet. The prime example : the potato. It is an
essential part of the Indian diet today. But, it
was brought to India by the Europeans. To me, potato
( and other tubers ) violate some very basic notions
of ahimsa. While green, leafy vegetables such as
spinach are re-generative i.e. does not require us to
kill the plant, tubers are under-ground and require
the whole plant to be up-rooted. How different is
this
from killing a chicken to eat its legs?
Among the so-called orthoprax "vegetarian" brahmins in
US
I find a more distressing tendency to justify their
yuppie lifestyle by disingenously invoking
vegetarianism.
So, it is perfecty "vegetarian" to gorge on McDonald's
French Fries ( which is flavored with beef essence,
BTW).
One of my friends once argued that beer is OK as it
is vegetarian, made out of grains(barley) and of course,
even our Rishis drank soma!!
2. Is ahimsa the basis for our "vegetarianism"?
As indicated above, "vegetarianism" is an un-wholesome
word to indicate the sattvic ideal. But, it seems
incongruent to me that we not only mention vegetarianism
but also justify it by invoking ahimsa. This argument
runs in to several problems. Namely,
a) Vedic rituals do involve animal slaughter
(Though I have never been pleased to hear this).
b) Our shastras and acharyas seem to indicate that
animal slaughter in vedic rituals is not against
ahimsa.
c) Various puranic accounts also admit of animal
slaughter to "please" the gods. For instance, in the
Mahabharath, the Pandavas burn a forest to feed
Agni deva the animals in the forest. And, Agni deva
was quite pleased with this offering!
d) There are various brahmin communities in existence
which do eat meat. Of course, this is due to their
"religious" beliefs. The Bengali Shakta brahmins do
not see anything wrong about eating fish. The
kaula-Shaiva Kashmiri brahmins eat meat!
It seems that only VaiShNava-s and Astika Shaiva-s
place a great emphasis on "vegetarianism". Shaktas
and others don't seem to care too much.
Considering this, how accurate would it be to ascribe our
sattvic ideal to ahimsa? Shouldn't it be the other way
around i.e. ahimsa is something that should be practiced
to reach the sattivik level? And by ahimsa, the primary
intent is not to cause wilful injury to any living being
by thought, word or deed. No?
These thoughts have bothered me for quite some time.
I request clarification from the list members.
Thanks,
-Vivek.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
>From "Manjunath . H . Bhajantri" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:32:40 +0530
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Reply-To: Manjunath H Bhajantri <shivnand at c...>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Manjunath . H . Bhajantri" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Hello all,
I am sorry in this, I may be somewhat ridiculous,
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 10:43:19AM -0700, Vivek Anand Ganesan wrote:
> --- ShrI V Chandrasekaran wrote:
> {Parts of original post sniped for brevity}
> > 1 lb. of bread - 1 lb. of grains
> > 1 lb. of chicken - 2 lb. of grains (so much spent to
> > feed the birds)
> > 1 lb. of ham - 5 lb. of grains (so much spent to
> > feed the pigs)
> > 1 lb. of beef - 10 lb. of grains (so much spent to
> > feed the cows)
The above reason, is absolutely a one of the good reason to be
a vegetarian.
> This is the ecological argument for vegetarianism. It is
> the
> best by far, IMO. In fact, the meat industry is one of the
> most polluting and highly toxic ( for the animals as well
> as
> the people ). It is also prone to diseases ( like the ones
> currently ). If not for anything, people in the West
> should avoid "industrialized" meat to send a message to the
> industries to clean up their act.
Why do we need to proclaim veda's verses to see if the
vegetarianism is good or bad. Our philosophy itself is
based on the enquiry(vichara). So each and everyone ask himself
if non-vegetarianism is good or not, because here the
life of another living being is involved which are not
harming us in any way. and where we can resort to
other means of food.
> > Reg. vedic rituals involving sacrifices:
> This has been discussed before in this list. The opinion
> seemed to be that the ONLY allowed meat consumption is that
> of the animals sacrificed in a yajna.
>
Hell with all these sacrifices, how can anyone justify killing,
i.e cold blooded murder of some living being which is
itself a mainfestation of God. We don't know, what, those
who did sacrifices, knew whether it was right or wrong.
But if we use our intellect, then you can not kill any
organism which is not harming us. It is like how about eating
human flesh? Why can't we eat it.
Don't these animals have their right to live.
> I have had a few doubts regarding vegetarianism as
> understood and practiced by us.
>
> 1. Is "vegetarianism" the correct word to describe our
> dietary policy?
> This word seems to indicate that by avoiding meat, we
> are somehow in accrodance with our scriptures. But, from
> what I have seen and learned there is more to our
> dietary policy than just meat avoidance.
> The correct word should be "sattvic" diet. In fact, the
> dietary restrictions and other practices like speech
> control, prayer, shama, dama etc. are to effect
> chitta-shuddhi and to lead us to the sattvic state which
> is most conducive to attaining moksha, No?
> Alas, there is no satisfactory translation of "sattvic"
> in English. Hence, the "sattvic" ideal has been watered
> down to "vegetarianism". The reason I oppose this word
> is because there seems to be a pernicious belief within
> our community that by just avoiding meat, we are in
> conformity with the shastras. I would like clarification
> on the following points.
I think we in the riddle of these words forget the basic things.
words can not tell us.
> a) The typical Indian vegetarian diet has a lot of
> calories by way of oil, ghee, dalda etc.
> Besides being very unhealthy, greasy food is not
> sattvic. Among Indians in the middle-class and above
> obesity is the foremost health risk!
> b) We also consume excess carbohydrates. Especially,
> S. Indian brahmins, who are known to eat rice three
> times a day. If not rice, it is Idly, dosa etc. which
> are just as packed with carbo-s. It is not surprising
> that S. Indians have the highest incidence of
> diabetes
> in the world!
> c) While adhering to the "vegetarian" norm, we Indians
> ( even Brahmins ) consume caffeinated drinks such as
> coffee, tea etc. Did our ancestors do this?
> How is it OK for us to do so?
> d) We have also adopted various "foreign" "vegetables"
> in
At least you are not killing any animal here. You are too
shortsighted, very utilitarion, thinking of only the gains
of yours. Always the life comes first and then these
inert objects.
> our diet. The prime example : the potato. It is an
> essential part of the Indian diet today. But, it
> was brought to India by the Europeans. To me, potato
> ( and other tubers ) violate some very basic notions
> of ahimsa. While green, leafy vegetables such as
> spinach are re-generative i.e. does not require us to
> kill the plant, tubers are under-ground and require
> the whole plant to be up-rooted. How different is
> this
> from killing a chicken to eat its legs?
> Among the so-called orthoprax "vegetarian" brahmins in
> US
> I find a more distressing tendency to justify their
> yuppie lifestyle by disingenously invoking
> vegetarianism.
> So, it is perfecty "vegetarian" to gorge on McDonald's
> French Fries ( which is flavored with beef essence,
> BTW).
> One of my friends once argued that beer is OK as it
> is vegetarian, made out of grains(barley) and of course,
> even our Rishis drank soma!!
>
> 2. Is ahimsa the basis for our "vegetarianism"?
> As indicated above, "vegetarianism" is an un-wholesome
> word to indicate the sattvic ideal. But, it seems
> incongruent to me that we not only mention vegetarianism
> but also justify it by invoking ahimsa. This argument
> runs in to several problems. Namely,
> a) Vedic rituals do involve animal slaughter
> (Though I have never been pleased to hear this).
> b) Our shastras and acharyas seem to indicate that
> animal slaughter in vedic rituals is not against
> ahimsa.
> c) Various puranic accounts also admit of animal
> slaughter to "please" the gods. For instance, in the
> Mahabharath, the Pandavas burn a forest to feed
> Agni deva the animals in the forest. And, Agni deva
> was quite pleased with this offering!
Just because pandavas did means u can not claim it is right, if your
intellect says it is wrong then it is wrong. They killed
animals means they definitely did crime in the eyes of
God.
> d) There are various brahmin communities in existence
> which do eat meat. Of course, this is due to their
> "religious" beliefs. The Bengali Shakta brahmins do
> not see anything wrong about eating fish. The
> kaula-Shaiva Kashmiri brahmins eat meat!
> It seems that only VaiShNava-s and Astika Shaiva-s
> place a great emphasis on "vegetarianism". Shaktas
> and others don't seem to care too much.
> Considering this, how accurate would it be to ascribe our
> sattvic ideal to ahimsa? Shouldn't it be the other way
> around i.e. ahimsa is something that should be practiced
> to reach the sattivik level? And by ahimsa, the primary
> intent is not to cause wilful injury to any living being
> by thought, word or deed. No?
>
> These thoughts have bothered me for quite some time.
> I request clarification from the list members.
>
ciao,
Manjunath.
--
Might is right is the law of
>From Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:47:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
>
>> > Reg. vedic rituals involving sacrifices:
>> This has been discussed before in this list. The opinion
>> seemed to be that the ONLY allowed meat consumption is that
>> of the animals sacrificed in a yajna.
>>
>Hell with all these sacrifices, how can anyone justify killing,
>i.e cold blooded murder of some living being which is
>itself a mainfestation of God. We don't know, what, those
>who did sacrifices, knew whether it was right or wrong.
>But if we use our intellect, then you can not kill any
>organism which is not harming us. It is like how about eating
>human flesh? Why can't we eat it.
> Don't these animals have their right to live.
>
The conditions for the partaking of meat has been described in Manu Smriti
Chapter V Slokas 26-58.
http://www.harekrsna.com/science/hearing/manu/manu5.htm
Briefly, the use of animals has been sanctioned by the Veda that shone
forth from the very same source that created the universe, and all the
animals in it. The animals that are sacrificed attain a better state than
they previously had, and to which they would otherwise have no recourse.
Some violence and killing is natural for existence - whether it is a lamb
used in sacrifice or the millions of microbes we kill with every
>From Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:13:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:43:19 -0700, Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...>
wrote:
> Considering this, how accurate would it be to ascribe our
> sattvic ideal to ahimsa? Shouldn't it be the other way
> around i.e. ahimsa is something that should be practiced
> to reach the sattivik level? And by ahimsa, the primary
> intent is not to cause wilful injury to any living being
> by thought, word or deed. No?
>
>These thoughts have bothered me for quite some time.
>I request clarification from the list members.
>
I think the main point here is avoid hypocrisy.
The question, "should we avoid eating meat?" should immediately
be followed by the question "In what context?" Only then does
it make sense. In the context of certain Vedic rituals, killing of
animals is allowed. In all other contexts, killing animals is
condemned.
This is similar to having sex. If you ask "Is having sex bad?",
there will be a counter question "In what context?" Sexual relations
in the context of marriage is allowed as per our dharma. But sexual
relations outside of marriage is condemned. But one may ask, "How
come there are sannyAsins who take up sannyAsa without going through
marriage?" OK, if you are mentally strong enough to do that, do it
by all means. But don't be a hypocrite sannyAsin who cherishes
relations with women. It is far better to be a responsible husband
who takes care of his family than being a hypocrite, debaucherous
sannyAsin.
SImilarly, don't be a hypocrite vegetarian. If you want to avoid
meat, don't condemn Vedic sacrifices just because you want to
come across as noble and practising ahiMsA. The Vedic sacrifices
are beyond blame and all the three AchAryas - Shankara, RAmAnuja,
and Madhva- agree on this point. Again, don't be a
hypocrite meat-eater who outwardly praises vegetarianism but
continues to eat meat. Or, don't justify eating meat by saying that
our ancestors practised Vedic sacrifices that required animals.
We cannot selectively take parts of the Vedic sacrifices, the part
that required killing animals, and justify meat-eating.
We should learn from the examples of our AchAryas. They themselves never
ate meat, having taken up sannyAsa, but they never criticized Vedic
sacrifices as the followers of heterodox schools
>From Sankaran Aniruddhan <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 19:25:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Sankaran Aniruddhan <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Hi,
> c) While adhering to the "vegetarian" norm, we Indians
> ( even Brahmins ) consume caffeinated drinks such as
> coffee, tea etc. Did our ancestors do this?
> How is it OK for us to do so?
I suspect that drinking caffeinated drinks may not be very good (similar to alcohol) since it is a (nervous) stimulant.
> d) We have also adopted various "foreign" "vegetables"
> in
> our diet. The prime example : the potato. It is an
> essential part of the Indian diet today. But, it
> was brought to India by the Europeans. To me, potato
> ( and other tubers ) violate some very basic notions
> of ahimsa. While green, leafy vegetables such as
> spinach are re-generative i.e. does not require us to
> kill the plant, tubers are under-ground and require
> the whole plant to be up-rooted. How different is
> this
> from killing a chicken to eat its legs?
How about eating rice? isn't the whole plant killed when the grains are picked? How is ahimsa practised in this case?
> One of my friends once argued that beer is OK as it
> is vegetarian, made out of grains(barley) and of course,
> even our Rishis drank soma!!
I don't think that it has ever been proved that soma is/was an alcoholic drink/stimulant.
Any living thing, if it wants to continue living, needs to interact with the ecological system around it. No human being can live without affecting any other living thing, i.e. I would think it isn't possible to practise "perfect" ahimsa (unless we consider a rishi in a state of deep tapas). What is possible, however, is to keep this interaction to a minimum. Vegetarianism is a good method for doing this. Also, obviously, the "saatvic" concept is also partly valid. But there are also vegetarian foods like garlic and onions which are "Raajasic" (I think) and hence are not cooked on important religious occasions, but are nowadays part of our regular diet.
I've heard other reasons like plants don't have nervous systems like animals, and hence don't feel pain; or they can grow back if parts of them are cut down etc, but they don't seem too convincing...
I guess the best thing to say would be that its a tradition which has been followed in your family for at least 2500 years (if you believe that buddhism contributed to vegetarianism in India), so you want to follow it too.
regards,
Aniruddhan
Sruti smRti purANAnAm Alayam karuNAlayam
namAmi bhagavatpAda Sam.karam lokaSam.karam
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
>From "V Chandrasekaran" <vchandra at a...>
Subject: Re: Vedism (fwd)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:31:01 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "V Chandrasekaran" <vchandra at a...>
Dear Members,
> There is a connection between the name of Ramesses and that of our Rama.
This is in no way to belittle the words of the great Sage of Kanchi.
Comparing Ramses with our Rama may be a little too much, because
Ramses was no way a eka-pathni vrathan going by his history. He was a
great emperor of Egyptian lore, no doubt.
> Kapilaranya(the forest in which Kapila had his hermitage), we may
> further take it, was situated there. It ia likely that Kapilaranya
> changed to California in the same manner as Madurai is something
> altered to "Marudai". Also noteworthy is the fact that there is a
> Horse Island near California as well as an Ash Island.
I have heard "california" is a spanish word which means "hot oven".
That was the name the early Spanish expeditioners could come up with
when they came to the hot desert of the west coast.
But I strongly believe in the crux of the idea presented to us by
the Sage of Kanchi. There must have been a great degree of influence
by our vedic society on the rest of the world community, long back.
This has been acknowledged by world.. On one occasion it was the Chinese
premiere who said "India is the country which conquered many a nation
without marching its army across her frontiers, purely by her culture".
On another occasion (on the blurb of Swami Prabhavananda's famous book
"Spiritual Heritage of India"), a western philosopher and thinker had
said something on the same lines.
But it's an irony that the events happening now are alluding otherwise..
with all the western cult catching up with the metros of our nation.
With regards,
>From "Malolan Cadambi" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Malolan Cadambi" <mcadambi at y...>
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:53:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Malolan Cadambi" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
sri:
Dear Bhaktals,
This is with reference to the "soma" mentioned in this mail. All errors and
faults are mine, but all credits go to my pUrvAcharyals.
> > One of my friends once argued that beer is OK as it
> > is vegetarian, made out of grains(barley) and of course,
> > even our Rishis drank soma!!
>
> I don't think that it has ever been proved that soma is/was an alcoholic
drink/stimulant.
Please follow the link I have provided below to get the ACTUAL MEANING of
the "soma drink" refered in the Vedams. The thought that "soma" is an
Alcoholic Drink is baseless and is a very common misconception. This article
by Dr.V.Sadagopan of Massachusettss Institute of Technology and Oppiliappan
Sannidhi should be the best reference in this topic.
For members who do not have time to read the entire beautiful Article, I
have provided the first two introductory paragraphs on this topic.
Soma paanam and SurA Paanam
*****************************
Soma has to be differentiated from SurA
(physically intoxiating alcohol ) made from
grapes or grains). Soma is a CONCEPTUAL
beverage of Gods , which is described as
Truth (Sathyam), Auspiciousness( Sri:) ,
light /radiance (Jyothi:) . SurA in contrast
is untruth (anrutham), misery (Paapmaa) and
darkness ( tama:). SomA leads to Jn~Anam
(enlightenment ) and Anandham ( bliss):
"sathyam vai SrI: JyOthi: SOma:
anrutha paapmA tama: SuraithE "
--Satapatha BrahmaNam: VI.1.3.10
SomA is not produced by crushing and filtering
a Creeper with the name of SomA. The creeeper is
also a conceptual creeper , the juice of which is
presented in a RITUALISTIC manner in Soma Yaagams .
The link is :
http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/nov2000/0040.html
> Sruti smRti purANAnAm Alayam karuNAlayam
> namAmi bhagavatpAda Sam.karam lokaSam.karam
|| SarvEbhyO AcharyO namO namaha ||
|| sarvayscha purvayAcharyay satkruthAyasthu mangalam ||
Adiyen Ramanuja Daasan,
Malolan Cadambi
"Jayatu Jayatu DevO DevakI NandanOyam" - Sri Kulashekara Alwar in Mukunda
MAla
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>From Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...>
Hello all :
--- ShrI Sankaran Aniruddhan wrote:
> I suspect that drinking caffeinated drinks may not be
> very good (similar to alcohol) since it is a (nervous)
> stimulant.
Quite so. I believe it would come under "lAhiri vastu"
( or something like that ). In any case, caffeine is a
drug and quite addictive!
> How about eating rice? isn't the whole plant killed when
> the grains are picked? How is ahimsa practised in this
> case?
Hence my question : Is the most important motive in
"vegetarianism" as recommended by our shAstras, sAttvikam
or ahimsA? And also, is ahimsA supposed to mean strict
"non-killing"? It cannot be because "jIvo jIvEna jIvitam"
- life lives on life i.e. all food consumed by us comes
from other life-forms, vegetarianism included. And, because
of that it would involve some form of himsa.
In fact, absolute non-killing is well-nigh impossible.
Perhaps because of this the Jain monks eventually starve
themselves to death ( which again is himsa of themselves )!
So, I believe that the primary reason for vegetariansim has
to be something besides ahimsa; it is the sattvik ideal.
The Bhagavad Gita ( Chs. 17 & 18 ) describe the food
classifiction as per gunas in detail. Specifically, "spicy"
food is considered to be rAjasic ( I don't know the exact
verse right now ). So, it appears that our dietary policy
is far more stringent than mere "vegetarianism". We should
avoid tAmasic and rAjasic food and eat only sAttvic food.
That means not just meat avoidance but also no potato
curry,
pooris dripping with oil, chappatis soaked in ghee, various
excessively sugary sweets, super-hot food, degree coffee,
special tea etc.
None of the foods mentioned above are sattvic and they
all
pose considerable health risks. Vegetarianism in itself is
not necessarily healthy unless it includes the sattvic
principle, IMO.
> I don't think that it has ever been proved that soma
> is/was an alcoholic drink/stimulant.
That seems to be the most prevalent notion. I myself
changed
this only after reading about it in the sarasvati web site.
Anyways, the picture of early vedic society as portrayed by
"standard" books is that of a fierce, light-skinned,
meat-eating, bacchanalian, pastoral race who enjoyed their
oblations, elixirs and potions. I was exposed to a contrary
view only after I started browsing on the Internet about
vedic peoples. At the very least, we should thank the
opponents of AIT for dispelling some of these myths.
> I guess the best thing to say would be that its a
> tradition which has been followed in your family for at
> least 2500 years (if you believe that buddhism
> contributed to vegetarianism in India), so you want to
> follow it too.
I agree. But, deriving our vegetarianism from ahimsa leads
to logical problems. It is much better explained by the
sattvic ideal, IMHO. Many thanks to ShrI Anand-ji, yourself
and ShrI Manjunath for the discussion.
Thanks,
-Vivek.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>From Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...>
Hello all :
Pursuant to our discussion on "Vegetarianism in the
vedas"
I request a more detailed discussion on ahimsA as per our
dharma. Specifically, I have two questions regarding this.
1. Is ahiMsA = non-killing at ALL times?
IMO, it cannot be for the following reasons :
a) Killing is allowed in vedic rituals as per our
dharma.
b) Kshatriyas engaged in dharma-yuddham and in defense
of country are allowed, in fact **required** to kill.
If ahiMsA is non-killing absolutely then both of the
above cases would be in violation of dharma which is
absurd.
2. Are our contemporary notions of ahiMsA overly based on
Gandhiji's understanding of ahiMsA? If yes then what is
the classical understanding of ahiMsA especially
vis-a-vis taking a life?
Thanks in advance,
-Vivek.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>From Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Three guNas and the vedas
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...>
Hello all :
I have read that the concept of the three guNas
( sattva, rajas and tamas ) is essentially from the
sAmkhya/yoga school and was employed in the Bhagavad gItA
in that context but was "vedantized" and incorporated in to
advaita.
1. Is ther a clear mention of the three guNas in the vedas?
Are they enumerated and discussed anywhere?
Thanks,
-Vivek.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>From ravi <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1751118249-986362711=:12619"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: ravi <owner-advaita-l at L...>
--0-1751118249-986362711=:12619
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
hi,
ahimsa in broder sence doesnt mean non-killing .
It means not acting against the Dharma ( or truth! ).
It might mean
" Not harming any living being who has not
acted against dharma ".
[ i think this also answers the questions rised by previous discussion
on vegetarianism ]
In responce to 1.(a) , i want to say ,
most part of the vedas only contains hymns , and are not considerd
with importance . The vedanta ( or the UPANISHADS ), & BhagavadGita
,are considered the books which are to be followed .
Thats why the comments ( or BHasHya ) of Sankaracharya are only
on Upanishads & bhagavad gita (but not on all Vedas).
It is considered that vedas & smrutis ( ex: manu smruti ) , are for
those whose understanding is less ( this is not my opinion , as i havent read
the vedas ,and so i cannot compare them with gita , it is in " INDIAN PHILOSOPHY
VOL-1 BY Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan ).
Also , the other contempory schools of Advaita i.e dvaita , Visistadyata & the so
called Nastika schools like Buddhism ,has their basis on thougts of Upanishads.
In responce to 2 .
the Gandhijis ahimsa ,as i understand , also means acting according
to truth , but not non-killing . But non-voilence of Gandhiji , might be
voilating BhagavadGita ( this i am not totally sure , i
look forward for others responces in this issue ) .
thanks,
-ravi
Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...> wrote:
Hello all :
Pursuant to our discussion on "Vegetarianism in the
vedas"
I request a more detailed discussion on ahimsA as per our
dharma. Specifically, I have two questions regarding this.
1. Is ahiMsA = non-killing at ALL times?
IMO, it cannot be for the following reasons :
a) Killing is allowed in vedic rituals as per our
dharma.
b) Kshatriyas engaged in dharma-yuddham and in defense
of country are allowed, in fact **required** to kill.
If ahiMsA is non-killing absolutely then both of the
above cases would be in violation of dharma which is
absurd.
2. Are our contemporary notions of ahiMsA overly based on
Gandhiji's understanding of ahiMsA? If yes then what is
the classical understanding of ahiMsA especially
vis-a-vis taking a life?
Thanks in advance,
-Vivek.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
--0-1751118249-986362711=:12619
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P> <BR>hi,
<P>ahimsa in broder sence doesnt mean non-killing . <BR>It means not acting against the Dharma ( or truth! ).
<P>It might mean <BR> " Not harming any living being who has not<BR>acted against dharma ".
<P><BR>[ i think this also answers the questions rised by previous discussion<BR>on vegetarianism ]
<P>In responce to 1.(a) , i want to say ,
<P> most part of the vedas only contains hymns , and are not considerd <BR>with importance . The vedanta ( or the UPANISHADS ), & BhagavadGita<BR>,are considered the books which are to be followed .
<P> Thats why the comments ( or BHasHya ) of Sankaracharya are only<BR>on Upanishads & bhagavad gita (but not on all Vedas).
<P> It is considered that vedas & smrutis ( ex: manu smruti ) , are for<BR>those whose understanding is less ( this is not my opinion , as i havent read<BR>the vedas ,and so i cannot compare them with gita , it is in " INDIAN PHILOSOPHY<BR>VOL-1 BY Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan ).
<P> Also , the other contempory schools of Advaita i.e dvaita , Visistadyata & the so<BR>called Nastika schools like Buddhism ,has their basis on thougts of Upanishads.
<P><BR>In responce to 2 .
<P> the Gandhijis ahimsa ,as i understand , also means acting according<BR>to truth , but not non-killing . But non-voilence of Gandhiji , might be<BR>voilating BhagavadGita ( this i am not totally sure , i<BR>look forward for others responces in this issue ) .
<P>thanks,<BR>-ravi
<P> <B><I>Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...></I></B> wrote: <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Hello all :<BR><BR>Pursuant to our discussion on "Vegetarianism in the<BR>vedas"<BR>I request a more detailed discussion on ahimsA as per our<BR>dharma. Specifically, I have two questions regarding this.<BR><BR>1. Is ahiMsA = non-killing at ALL times?<BR>IMO, it cannot be for the following reasons :<BR>a) Killing is allowed in vedic rituals as per our<BR>dharma.<BR>b) Kshatriyas engaged in dharma-yuddham and in defense<BR>of country are allowed, in fact **required** to kill.<BR>If ahiMsA is non-killing absolutely then both of the<BR>above cases would be in violation of dharma which is<BR>absurd.<BR><BR>2. Are our contemporary notions of ahiMsA overly based on<BR>Gandhiji's understanding of ahiMsA? If yes then what is<BR>the classical understanding of ahiMsA especially<BR>vis-a-vis taking a life?<BR><BR>Thanks in advance,<BR><BR>-Vivek.<BR><BR>______________________________________________!
____<BR>Do You Yahoo!?<BR>Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.<BR>http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/</BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
<a href="http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=mailiyfoot">Yahoo! Mail Personal Address</a> -
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo!
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: What is Sannyasa according to Shankaracharya?
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 07:44:49 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
>>>>I seem to recall it said in the Gitabhashya under karmaNaiva hi
saMsiddhimAsthitA janakAdayaH (3:20) The siddhi referred to is brahmaloka
not moksha which is only acheivable by jnana. But I don't have that text
handy right now so I could be wrong.
Please look in to the text, Bhagavan Shakracharya makes it totally clear
that samsiddhi means moksha. What is meant there, karmanaa doesn't mean by
Karma, but it means "even together with Karma". Tritiya Vibhakti is also
applied when the meaning of Saha (together) is there. There is Panini's
rule, "sahayukte apradhaane".
That mean, they even got Moksha, while doing Karma, i.e. not doing Sannyasa.
But indeed they attained Moksha only by Jnaana. However, according to
commentators like Neelakantha and Madhusudana it means, "jnaana nishtha".
>>>But why "had to"? He could have made the argument that the promise was
also illusionary so not binding on a jnani but he didn't.
He would also never do. Because he is not a fool and he would never mix
paaramaarthika drishti with vyaavahaarika drishti. What I want to say is
that OK, his promise was illusionary from a paaramaarthika point of view,
but from a vyaavahaarika point of view his promise was as true, as he
himself and his mother was.
>>>Mostly, yes. But see for example 3.1.9-11. Rshi Karshnajini's view is
rejected and Rshi Badari's view is accepted.
Yea, I remember it, in the context of the meaning of Charana, in
ramaniya-charana and kapuya charana.
>>>>No. One way to that would be to say these other paths cannot take you
all the way to mukti but they have partial validity and can take you part
of the way. And I believe that's what he does. That's why he doesnt
reject karma outright like the Buddhists.
I think, the cause why he doesn't reject Karma-kaanda, is because he is a
follower of the Vedas.
>>>>>Perhaps all the facts were there but the implications of those facts
had
to be examined at length. This is the process of Mimamsa. All the
various views of the Rshis were gathered and compared and when a consensus
formed on a particular topic it became the siddhanta.
Indeed.
>>>Yes but he only teaches that rejection to those who are qualified to hear
it. The other forms are for those who are still working themselves up to
that level. I think this is why Shankaracharya deserves the title
jagadguru. Because he was able to give something to all levels of
aspirants not just a small elite.
Prostrations unto you.
Thank you very
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: an appeal to those discussing Vegetarianism in here
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:39:10 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0076_01C0BCFB.DDABA240"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C0BCFB.DDABA240
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=20=20
An appeal to those discussing Vegetarianism in here:
NO VEDA TEACHES MEAT SACRIFICE. Veda-related scriptures do teach that, but =
not THE VEDAS.
I don't know why many people are keeping on saying that Vedas teach us to s=
acrifice meat.
NO Veda samhita (mantra portion) teaches meat sacrifice or meat eating. Ple=
ase make it clear that it is the later Brahmana books and mostly the very m=
uch later Kalpa Sutras who teach meat sacrifice. Kalpa Sutras were accepted=
as the only interpretation of the Vedas in the mass, and therefore it is s=
aid that Vedas teach meat sacrifice.=20
But, please remember these words, Kalpa Sutras are only based on Adhiyajna =
Interpretation of the Vedas. There are many others, Like
Adhidaiva. For this sort of interpretation, Yaska's nirukta and the comment=
aries of Skanda Swami etc. have to bee consulted.=20
Adhyatma, for this sort of interpretation, Yaska's nirukta, Durgaacharya's =
commentary on it and 10 Upanishads have to be consulted.=20
------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C0BCFB.DDABA240
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> =20
<P class=3DMsoNormal>An appeal to those discussing Vegetarianism in here:</=
P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>NO VEDA TEACHES MEAT SACRIFICE. Veda-related scripture=
s do=20
teach that, but not THE VEDAS.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>I don't know why many people are keeping on saying tha=
t Vedas=20
teach us to sacrifice meat.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>NO Veda samhita (mantra portion) teaches meat sacrific=
e or=20
meat eating. Please make it clear that it is the later Brahmana books and m=
ostly=20
the very much later Kalpa Sutras who teach meat sacrifice. Kalpa Sutras wer=
e=20
accepted as the only interpretation of the Vedas in the mass, and therefore=
it=20
is said that Vedas teach meat sacrifice. </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>But, please remember these words, Kalpa Sutras are onl=
y based=20
on Adhiyajna Interpretation of the Vedas. There are many others, Like</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Adhidaiva. For this sort of interpretation, Yaska's ni=
rukta=20
and the commentaries of Skanda Swami etc. have to bee consulted. </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Adhyatma, for this sort of interpretation, Yaska's nir=
ukta,=20
Durgaacharya's commentary on it and 10 Upanishads have to be
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: about Soma
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:59:01 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Dear Advaitins,
After reading the astonishing contents about "soma" (the sacred juice, the
word is used very much in Rig-veda) on the Internet, I was very upset and I
decided to search for it's true meaning, at least the meaning which was in
the mind of the Rishis.
In the beginning I would like to state a Mantra from Rig-veda, which
clarifies to the greatest extent what our great seer meant by that word.
The Holy Seer Rishikaa Suryaa tells us, in her divine hymn of Rig-veda.
"those who grind a plant, they think we have drunken Soma. But the Soma
which is known to the hymns (of Rig-veda), no body drinks out of that"
(Rig-veda 10-85-3)
This clarifies to the greatest point that according to the Great Divine
Seers of Rig-veda, soma is a very mysterious thing. What is it, I would try
to make it a bit more explicit with some quotations from the Brahmanas and
other Vedic books (as well Vedic grammars).
There are two systems to coin a word of the Vedas. The first and the oldest
is the system of the Brahmanas and the Nirukta. The second is the system
introduced by later grammarians, like Panini, Vararuchi Katyayana and
Patanjali. If we coin the word "soma" with both systems, the outcome in
brief is the same. But it is obvious, that the older system would be able to
tell us more about the ancient mentality, than the later system, as the
systems of Panini don't show much interest in Vedic Sanskrit. So, I started
to search for an explanation of this word in the ancient system of the
Brahmanas. I think, this would clear all the wrong understandings about the
word.
The Madhyandina Shatapatha-brahmana (the Brahmana, which includes
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and is a sort of commentary to the Shukla
Yajur-veda, Madhyandina Shakha) states, 'svaa vai ma esheti tasmaat somo
naama" (3-9-4-22). "This is my own self, thus it is called soma". This
means, the mentality that "this (what ever is before me) is my own self and
nothing different from me" is called "soma". The Brahmana shows that the
word soma has been derived from two words, "sva" (one's own self) and "me"
(my).
Consider also the phrase of Brihadaryanyaka Upanishad, which includes the
Mahavakya "aham brahmaasmi" - (1-4-10)
"This world was all Brahman, He knew himself that I'm Brahman, thus he
became all this. Therefore, who ever among the Devas knows this, became
That. In the same way, all the Rishis and Manushyas. Seeing this Rishi
Vamadeva said, (in Rig-veda), I'm manu, indeed I'm the sun. Therefore, who
ever realizes "I'm Brahman", he becomes all this, even invincible by the
Devas (all scholars or inner and outer organs, usual people are dominated by
them). He become the self of the Gods."
I'm Brahman = I'm all this, in other words, it is (me) my own (sva) self =
soma.
We know that all the Gods, Rishis and Manushyas of Rig-veda are
Soma-drinkers, does this Brihadaranyaka Mantra not clarify the concept of
Soma, as described in the Brahmana above.
Now, what about the word "Rasa" (sweet juice), which is sometimes used
together with the word soma, as in "soma-rasa". For to make it clear, let us
go to the Taittiriya Aranyaka of Krishna Yajurveda Taittiriya Samhita.
"That Atman is indeed rasa. That is why after realizing Atman, a person is
full with Ananda (spiritual joy)...he who enters in this Supreme Self,
becomes fearless. But if he sees difference in it, he always fears..."
And then, read the next portion (if you have Taittiriya Upanishad, it is
2-7,8), what a great joy he gets, after having that Rasa.
This is now according to the old system of word-forming. According to the
new system, as introduced to us by Panini and Patanjali etc. the word "soma"
literally should mean, "the state of Ishwara Bhava", as the root "shu", from
which the later system derives the word, means, Aishwarya or Iswara-ness,
according to Panini. So, in fact there is no difference in the outcome.
I'm writing this a bit in a brief, as I'm still searching, but I hope it
would help you to understand the mentality of the great Vedic seer, behind
the word "soma". This is a very disputed word, and I think, now it should
become totally clear.
Loving
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:28:14 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
>>>>>"sathyam vai SrI: JyOthi: SOma:
anrutha paapmA tama: SuraithE "
--Satapatha BrahmaNam: VI.1.3.10
Shatapatha Brahmanam also tells, "sva vai ma esha it tasmaat somo naama".
"this is my own self", this concept is called soma.
>>>>>>>SomA is not produced by crushing and filtering
a Creeper with the name of SomA. The creeeper is
also a conceptual creeper , the juice of which is
presented in a RITUALISTIC manner in Soma Yaagams .
But we shouldn't forget, that even that existed in the time of Rig-veda. But
it was not meant by the Rishis in that way. See, my article on soma.
What I think, it is somehow like this:
You must have heard the great mystic saints Sufi saints using the word
"sharaab" (wine). But indeed everybody knows that they don't mean the
physical wine, but the wine of self-realization. It is the same with the
word "soma", which has been used by our great mystic Rishi's, in the meaning
of self-realization.
Indeed, there existed something intoxicating in that time, which people used
to drink. A clear mentioning from the Rig-veda has been provided in my
article, in the beginning. But, it was taken as a symbolical name to a
transcendental wine.
Isn't it like this?
Loving
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:17:49 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
>>>>>I guess the best thing to say would be that its a tradition which has
been followed in your family for at least 2500 years (if you believe that
buddhism contributed to vegetarianism in India), so you want to follow it
too.
I don't think, that buddhism contributed to vegetarianism in India.
If we look at Patanjalis yoga-sutras, a very clear description of ahimsaa
has been given.
"jAti-desha-kAla-samayAnavacchinnAH sArvabhaumA mahAvratam" (2-31), i.e.
when not conditioned by class, place, time or concept of duty, Ahimsa etc.
are universal and constitute the great vow.
In it's bhaashya, veda-vyaasa (do you think, anybody else can understand the
Vedas better than him) says, "ahimsa is conditioned by a sense of duty when
a person says, I will kill for the sake of the Gods and the brahmins and not
otherwise.....ahimsa etc. should always be observed, when unconditioned by
class, place, time and duty".
So, what is the quintessence, do you think this is an anti-vedic statement.
My last article tries to tell that animal sacrifice is only existing in the
Brahmana's and not in the Veda-samhita's it self.
Therefore, animal sacrifice is just a misunderstanding of the Vedas, in the
same way like soma drinking was a misunderstanding. Indeed, this
misunderstand existed among the mass even in the time of the Vedas, my
article about soma shows it. But indeed, the esoteric significance was
always ahimsa, really unconditioned
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:45:35 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Dear Ananda ji,
You wrote:
"The Vedic sacrifices
are beyond blame and all the three AchAryas - Shankara, RAmAnuja,
and Madhva- agree on this point"
I think you are missing a point. It is well-known about Madhvacharya, that
he ordered his brother to use idols, instead of animals. All the scholars
who were against it, lost the debate with Madhvacharya. He stated that in
fact Vedas don't teach animal sacrifice.
Isn't it like
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Three guNas and the vedas
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:59:48 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Vivek Ananda Ganeshan ji wrote:
Is there a clear mention of the three guNas in the vedas?
However, I can't remember that the words have been really used. But there is
one Mantra of Rig-veda,
"O Varuna! Free us from the upper tie, free us from the middle and the lower
one. That we may be able to become sinless and fit for salvation" (Rig-veda
1-24-15). However, a very similar statement, is also there at 1-25-21.
If we look at the descriptions of the three Gunas, as provided in the Gita,
these three ties are in fact the three gunas.
Bhagavan Shri Krishna says, "sattvaguna binds by attachment to happiness and
by attachment to knowledge......rajoguna binds by attachment to
action....tamoguna binds by miscrompihension, indolence and sleep" (in the
14th chapter). Does it not seem a really a commentary on the abovementioned
Mantra?
sattvaguna is the upper tie and the rest are the rest.
Therefore, even though these three gunas are not mentioned by name (most
probably they might be, but then I'm ignorant after studying the Vedas for
the last 12 years), the concept did exist and therefore even if it is a
development of the samkhyas/yogas, it is based on the Vedas. However, Vedas
should always be seen that they are hidden words, "ninyaa vacaamsi",
containing a higher truth in them, but indeed hidden. That is the great
mysticism and that makes the Vedas even higher than the Upanishads.
Love and regards,
Siddhartha
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Om Shantih, Shantih, Shantih, Om
(Om Peace, Peace, Peace, Om)
° "da da da" (Control your self! Give to others! Have compassion towards
all! - The three Vedic commandments)
° ° my e-mail address: siddharthakrishna at v...
° ° ° Like to read about Vedism? please visit:
http://www.geocities.com/vedism/ or
http://members.nbci.com/siddharthakrishna/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vivek Anand Ganesan" <v_ganesan at Y...>
To: <ADVAITA-L at L...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:40 AM
Subject: Three guNas and the vedas
> Hello all :
>
> I have read that the concept of the three guNas
> ( sattva, rajas and tamas ) is essentially from the
> sAmkhya/yoga school and was employed in the Bhagavad gItA
> in that context but was "vedantized" and incorporated in to
> advaita.
>
> 1. Is ther a clear mention of the three guNas in the vedas?
> Are they enumerated and discussed anywhere?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Vivek.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:03:46 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005D_01C0BD07.AEF841E0"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
------=_NextPart_000_005D_01C0BD07.AEF841E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=20
>>>>most part of the vedas only contains hymns , and are not considerd=20
with importance . The vedanta ( or the UPANISHADS ), & BhagavadGita
,are considered the books which are to be followed .=20
>>>>>>>Thats why the comments ( or BHasHya ) of Sankaracharya are only
on Upanishads & bhagavad gita (but not on all Vedas).=20
>>>>> It is considered that vedas & smrutis ( ex: manu smruti ) , are for
those whose understanding is less ( this is not my opinion , as i havent re=
ad
the vedas ,and so i cannot compare them with gita , it is in " INDIAN PHILO=
SOPHY
VOL-1 BY Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan ).=20
It is a shame for us, that our own scholars and such great scholars stated =
something like that, purely not have been studying the Vedas. That can be t=
he only cause why they state something like that. Sorry, for the rude words=
. But I can't bear something like this against the Vedas, because I can see=
that it is not like that.
Siddhartha
------=_NextPart_000_005D_01C0BD07.AEF841E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<P>>>>>most part of the vedas only contains hymns , and are not=
=20
considerd <BR>with importance . The vedanta ( or the UPANISHADS ), &=20
BhagavadGita<BR>,are considered the books which are to be followed .=20
<?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:offic=
e"=20
/><o:p></o:p></P>
<P> >>>>>>>Thats why the comments ( or BHasHya ) =
of=20
Sankaracharya are only<BR>on Upanishads & bhagavad gita (but not on all=
=20
Vedas). <o:p></o:p></P>
<P>>>>>> It is considered that vedas & smrutis ( ex=
:=20
manu smruti ) , are for<BR>those whose understanding is less ( this is not =
my=20
opinion , as i havent read<BR>the vedas ,and so i cannot compare them with =
gita=20
, it is in " INDIAN PHILOSOPHY<BR>VOL-1 BY Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan ).=20
<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>It is a shame for us, that our own scholars and such g=
reat=20
scholars stated something like that, purely not have been studying the Veda=
s.=20
That can be the only cause why they state something like that. Sorry, for t=
he=20
rude words. But I can't bear something like this against the Vedas, because=
I=20
can see that it is not like that.</P>
<P
>From "nanda chandran" <vpcnk at H...>
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:10:52
Content-Type: text/html
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "nanda chandran" <vpcnk at H...>
<html><DIV></DIV>
<P>Vivek has raised some interesting points. Yes, all these concerns of vegetarians regarding the views of Advaita regarding sacrifices are perfectly valid. One point I would like to make is that - it is not practical to take an absolutist stand on what the acharyas or the shastras dictate as regards something like vegetarianism. Since we are far removed from these authorities by a great expanse of time and from the current condition of Indian youth - in ideals and culture as well, nobody can really say this is what the shastras and acharyas thought and this is what we should do. We cannot claim the support of tradition either as south Indian brahmins neither eat meat nor do the majority of them (I would guess atleast 99%) ever sacrificed an animal to the Vedic Gods!</P>
<P>Yes, even as Bheeshma advices in the Mahaabhaaratha, it is impossible to live and not harm other living organisms. Even as we bat our eyelids thousands of such organisms die. Best thing in this matter is to be true to ones own conscience and practice as much ahimsa as possible. It is also not practical to take an absolutistic stand here and question whether we're being true to ahimsa. Samsara being relative all such absolutist positions are bound to be contradictory. We can only do as best as we can in our quest for moksha. Moksha is the absolute where all such contradictions are resolved.</P>
<P>We can also use some imagination in reconciling the acharyas views to our own. For example I myself consider Shankara's sanction of Vedic sacrifices involving the killing of animals as more of a reaction to the Buddhist Ahimsa and to reassert the authority of the Vedas (which had gone down during that particular period of time due to the success of the nastika schools) rather than an integral part of his philosophy. Also Advita's alleged links with Buddhism might itself have forced Shankara to sanction Vedic sacrifices, to prove that Advaita was faithful to the Vedas. But as far as I know, there's no record of Shankara ever doing such a sacrifice!</P>
<P>But it also has to be understood that liberation is the primary and supreme concern in Advaita. Pleasing Vedic Gods or being faithful to the Vedic way of life is only secondary (Shankara himself wasn't faithful to the ashrama system - for he became a sannyaasi straight from the stage of a brahmachaari - which according to Mahaabhaaratha is not possible and a sage was even denied moksha as he didn't go through the stage of grhasta. So he had to go back get married, have children and then try again!). </P>
<P>When only knowledge (atma jnaanam) can liberate and even the shruti and Advaita philosophy itself is only apara vidhya and in the realm of ignorance, what benefit could sacrificing an animal bring?</P>
<P>PS : It was actually Madhvaacharya (the Dvaita aachaarya) who took a strong stand against animal sacrifices. He asserted that clay animals/or animals made of rice etc can be used, instead of real live animals.</P>
<P>> </P>
<DIV></DIV>>I have had a few doubts regarding vegetarianism as
<DIV></DIV>>understood and practiced by us.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>1. Is "vegetarianism" the correct word to describe our
<DIV></DIV>> dietary policy?
<DIV></DIV>> This word seems to indicate that by avoiding meat, we
<DIV></DIV>> are somehow in accrodance with our scriptures. But, from
<DIV></DIV>> what I have seen and learned there is more to our
<DIV></DIV>> dietary policy than just meat avoidance.
<DIV></DIV>> The correct word should be "sattvic" diet. In fact, the
<DIV></DIV>> dietary restrictions and other practices like speech
<DIV></DIV>> control, prayer, shama, dama etc. are to effect
<DIV></DIV>> chitta-shuddhi and to lead us to the sattvic state which
<DIV></DIV>> is most conducive to attaining moksha, No?
<DIV></DIV>> Alas, there is no satisfactory translation of "sattvic"
<DIV></DIV>> in English. Hence, the "sattvic" ideal has been watered
<DIV></DIV>> down to "vegetarianism". The reason I oppose this word
<DIV></DIV>> is because there seems to be a pernicious belief within
<DIV></DIV>> our community that by just avoiding meat, we are in
<DIV></DIV>> conformity with the shastras. I would like clarification
<DIV></DIV>> on the following points.
<DIV></DIV>> a) The typical Indian vegetarian diet has a lot of
<DIV></DIV>> calories by way of oil, ghee, dalda etc.
<DIV></DIV>> Besides being very unhealthy, greasy food is not
<DIV></DIV>> sattvic. Among Indians in the middle-class and above
<DIV></DIV>> obesity is the foremost health risk!
<DIV></DIV>> b) We also consume excess carbohydrates. Especially,
<DIV></DIV>> S. Indian brahmins, who are known to eat rice three
<DIV></DIV>> times a day. If not rice, it is Idly, dosa etc. which
<DIV></DIV>> are just as packed with carbo-s. It is not surprising
<DIV></DIV>> that S. Indians have the highest incidence of
<DIV></DIV>>diabetes
<DIV></DIV>> in the world!
<DIV></DIV>> c) While adhering to the "vegetarian" norm, we Indians
<DIV></DIV>> ( even Brahmins ) consume caffeinated drinks such as
<DIV></DIV>> coffee, tea etc. Did our ancestors do this?
<DIV></DIV>> How is it OK for us to do so?
<DIV></DIV>> d) We have also adopted various "foreign" "vegetables"
<DIV></DIV>>in
<DIV></DIV>> our diet. The prime example : the potato. It is an
<DIV></DIV>> essential part of the Indian diet today. But, it
<DIV></DIV>> was brought to India by the Europeans. To me, potato
<DIV></DIV>> ( and other tubers ) violate some very basic notions
<DIV></DIV>> of ahimsa. While green, leafy vegetables such as
<DIV></DIV>> spinach are re-generative i.e. does not require us to
<DIV></DIV>> kill the plant, tubers are under-ground and require
<DIV></DIV>> the whole plant to be up-rooted. How different is
<DIV></DIV>>this
<DIV></DIV>> from killing a chicken to eat its legs?
<DIV></DIV>> Among the so-called orthoprax "vegetarian" brahmins in
<DIV></DIV>>US
<DIV></DIV>> I find a more distressing tendency to justify their
<DIV></DIV>> yuppie lifestyle by disingenously invoking
<DIV></DIV>>vegetarianism.
<DIV></DIV>> So, it is perfecty "vegetarian" to gorge on McDonald's
<DIV></DIV>> French Fries ( which is flavored with beef essence,
<DIV></DIV>>BTW).
<DIV></DIV>> One of my friends once argued that beer is OK as it
<DIV></DIV>> is vegetarian, made out of grains(barley) and of course,
<DIV></DIV>> even our Rishis drank soma!!
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>2. Is ahimsa the basis for our "vegetarianism"?
<DIV></DIV>> As indicated above, "vegetarianism" is an un-wholesome
<DIV></DIV>> word to indicate the sattvic ideal. But, it seems
<DIV></DIV>> incongruent to me that we not only mention vegetarianism
<DIV></DIV>> but also justify it by invoking ahimsa. This argument
<DIV></DIV>> runs in to several problems. Namely,
<DIV></DIV>> a) Vedic rituals do involve animal slaughter
<DIV></DIV>> (Though I have never been pleased to hear this).
<DIV></DIV>> b) Our shastras and acharyas seem to indicate that
<DIV></DIV>> animal slaughter in vedic rituals is not against
<DIV></DIV>> ahimsa.
<DIV></DIV>> c) Various puranic accounts also admit of animal
<DIV></DIV>> slaughter to "please" the gods. For instance, in the
<DIV></DIV>> Mahabharath, the Pandavas burn a forest to feed
<DIV></DIV>> Agni deva the animals in the forest. And, Agni deva
<DIV></DIV>> was quite pleased with this offering!
<DIV></DIV>> d) There are various brahmin communities in existence
<DIV></DIV>> which do eat meat. Of course, this is due to their
<DIV></DIV>> "religious" beliefs. The Bengali Shakta brahmins do
<DIV></DIV>> not see anything wrong about eating fish. The
<DIV></DIV>> kaula-Shaiva Kashmiri brahmins eat meat!
<DIV></DIV>> It seems that only VaiShNava-s and Astika Shaiva-s
<DIV></DIV>> place a great emphasis on "vegetarianism". Shaktas
<DIV></DIV>> and others don't seem to care too much.
<DIV></DIV>> Considering this, how accurate would it be to ascribe our
<DIV></DIV>> sattvic ideal to ahimsa? Shouldn't it be the other way
<DIV></DIV>>
around i.e. ahimsa is something that should be practiced
<DIV></DIV>> to reach the sattivik level? And by ahimsa, the primary
<DIV></DIV>> intent is not to cause wilful injury to any living being
<DIV></DIV>> by thought, word or deed. No?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>These thoughts have bothered me for quite some time.
<DIV></DIV>>I request clarification from the list members.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Thanks,
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>-Vivek.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>__________________________________________________
<DIV></DIV>>Do You Yahoo!?
<DIV></DIV>>Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
<DIV></DIV>>http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:32:40 +0530
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Manjunath . H . Bhajantri" <SHIVNAND at C...>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Hello all,
<DIV></DIV>> I am sorry in this, I may be somewhat ridiculous,
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 10:43:19AM -0700, Vivek Anand Ganesan wrote:
<DIV></DIV>> > --- ShrI V Chandrasekaran wrote:
<DIV></DIV>> > {Parts of original post sniped for brevity}
<DIV></DIV>> > > 1 lb. of bread - 1 lb. of grains
<DIV></DIV>> > > 1 lb. of chicken - 2 lb. of grains (so much spent to
<DIV></DIV>> > > feed the birds)
<DIV></DIV>> > > 1 lb. of ham - 5 lb. of grains (so much spent to
<DIV></DIV>> > > feed the pigs)
<DIV></DIV>> > > 1 lb. of beef - 10 lb. of grains (so much spent to
<DIV></DIV>> > > feed the cows)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The above reason, is absolutely a one of the good reason to be
<DIV></DIV>>a vegetarian.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > This is the ecological argument for vegetarianism. It is
<DIV></DIV>> > the
<DIV></DIV>> > best by far, IMO. In fact, the meat industry is one of the
<DIV></DIV>> > most polluting and highly toxic ( for the animals as well
<DIV></DIV>> > as
<DIV></DIV>> > the people ). It is also prone to diseases ( like the ones
<DIV></DIV>> > currently ). If not for anything, people in the West
<DIV></DIV>> > should avoid "industrialized" meat to send a message to the
<DIV></DIV>> > industries to clean up their act.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Why do we need to proclaim veda's verses to see if the
<DIV></DIV>>vegetarianism is good or bad. Our philosophy itself is
<DIV></DIV>>based on the enquiry(vichara). So each and everyone ask himself
<DIV></DIV>>if non-vegetarianism is good or not, because here the
<DIV></DIV>>life of another living being is involved which are not
<DIV></DIV>>harming us in any way. and where we can resort to
<DIV></DIV>>other means of food.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > > Reg. vedic rituals involving sacrifices:
<DIV></DIV>> > This has been discussed before in this list. The opinion
<DIV></DIV>> > seemed to be that the ONLY allowed meat consumption is that
<DIV></DIV>> > of the animals sacrificed in a yajna.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>Hell with all these sacrifices, how can anyone justify killing,
<DIV></DIV>>i.e cold blooded murder of some living being which is
<DIV></DIV>>itself a mainfestation of God. We don't know, what, those
<DIV></DIV>>who did sacrifices, knew whether it was right or wrong.
<DIV></DIV>>But if we use our intellect, then you can not kill any
<DIV></DIV>>organism which is not harming us. It is like how about eating
<DIV></DIV>>human flesh? Why can't we eat it.
<DIV></DIV>> Don't these animals have their right to live.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > I have had a few doubts regarding vegetarianism as
<DIV></DIV>> > understood and practiced by us.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > 1. Is "vegetarianism" the correct word to describe our
<DIV></DIV>> > dietary policy?
<DIV></DIV>> > This word seems to indicate that by avoiding meat, we
<DIV></DIV>> > are somehow in accrodance with our scriptures. But, from
<DIV></DIV>> > what I have seen and learned there is more to our
<DIV></DIV>> > dietary policy than just meat avoidance.
<DIV></DIV>> > The correct word should be "sattvic" diet. In fact, the
<DIV></DIV>> > dietary restrictions and other practices like speech
<DIV></DIV>> > control, prayer, shama, dama etc. are to effect
<DIV></DIV>> > chitta-shuddhi and to lead us to the sattvic state which
<DIV></DIV>> > is most conducive to attaining moksha, No?
<DIV></DIV>> > Alas, there is no satisfactory translation of "sattvic"
<DIV></DIV>> > in English. Hence, the "sattvic" ideal has been watered
<DIV></DIV>> > down to "vegetarianism". The reason I oppose this word
<DIV></DIV>> > is because there seems to be a pernicious belief within
<DIV></DIV>> > our community that by just avoiding meat, we are in
<DIV></DIV>> > conformity with the shastras. I would like clarification
<DIV></DIV>> > on the following points.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I think we in the riddle of these words forget the basic things.
<DIV></DIV>>words can not tell us.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > a) The typical Indian vegetarian diet has a lot of
<DIV></DIV>> > calories by way of oil, ghee, dalda etc.
<DIV></DIV>> > Besides being very unhealthy, greasy food is not
<DIV></DIV>> > sattvic. Among Indians in the middle-class and above
<DIV></DIV>> > obesity is the foremost health risk!
<DIV></DIV>> > b) We also consume excess carbohydrates. Especially,
<DIV></DIV>> > S. Indian brahmins, who are known to eat rice three
<DIV></DIV>> > times a day. If not rice, it is Idly, dosa etc. which
<DIV></DIV>> > are just as packed with carbo-s. It is not surprising
<DIV></DIV>> > that S. Indians have the highest incidence of
<DIV></DIV>> > diabetes
<DIV></DIV>> > in the world!
<DIV></DIV>> > c) While adhering to the "vegetarian" norm, we Indians
<DIV></DIV>> > ( even Brahmins ) consume caffeinated drinks such as
<DIV></DIV>> > coffee, tea etc. Did our ancestors do this?
<DIV></DIV>> > How is it OK for us to do so?
<DIV></DIV>> > d) We have also adopted various "foreign" "vegetables"
<DIV></DIV>> > in
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>At least you are not killing any animal here. You are too
<DIV></DIV>>shortsighted, very utilitarion, thinking of only the gains
<DIV></DIV>>of yours. Always the life comes first and then these
<DIV></DIV>>inert objects.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > our diet. The prime example : the potato. It is an
<DIV></DIV>> > essential part of the Indian diet today. But, it
<DIV></DIV>> > was brought to India by the Europeans. To me, potato
<DIV></DIV>> > ( and other tubers ) violate some very basic notions
<DIV></DIV>> > of ahimsa. While green, leafy vegetables such as
<DIV></DIV>> > spinach are re-generative i.e. does not require us to
<DIV></DIV>> > kill the plant, tubers are under-ground and require
<DIV></DIV>> > the whole plant to be up-rooted. How different is
<DIV></DIV>> > this
<DIV></DIV>> > from killing a chicken to eat its legs?
<DIV></DIV>> > Among the so-called orthoprax "vegetarian" brahmins in
<DIV></DIV>> > US
<DIV></DIV>> > I find a more distressing tendency to justify their
<DIV></DIV>> > yuppie lifestyle by disingenously invoking
<DIV></DIV>> > vegetarianism.
<DIV></DIV>> > So, it is perfecty "vegetarian" to gorge on McDonald's
<DIV></DIV>> > French Fries ( which is flavored with beef essence,
<DIV></DIV>> > BTW).
<DIV></DIV>> > One of my friends once argued that beer is OK as it
<DIV></DIV>> > is vegetarian, made out of grains(barley) and of course,
<DIV></DIV>> > even our Rishis drank soma!!
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > 2. Is ahimsa the basis for our "vegetarianism"?
<DIV></DIV>> > As indicated above, "vegetarianism" is an un-wholesome
<DIV></DIV>> > word to indicate the sattvic ideal. But, it seems
<DIV></DIV>> > incongruent to me that we not only mention vegetarianism
<DIV></DIV>> > but also justify it by invoking ahimsa. This argument
<DIV></DIV>> > runs in to several problems. Namely,
<DIV></DIV>> > a) Vedic rituals do involve animal slaughter
<DIV></DIV>> > (Though I have never been pleased to hear this).
<DIV></DIV>> > b) Our shastras and acharyas seem to indicate that
<DIV></DIV>> > animal slaughter in vedic rituals is not against
<DIV></DIV>> > ahimsa.
<DIV></DIV>> > c) Various puranic accounts also admit of animal
<DIV></DIV>> > slaughter to "please" the gods. For instance, in the
<DIV></DIV>> > Mahabharath, the Pandavas burn a forest to feed
<DIV></DIV>> > Agni deva the animals in the forest. And, Agni deva
<DIV></DIV>> > was quite pleased with this offering!
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Just because pandavas did means u can not claim it is right, if your
<DIV></DIV>>intellect says it is wrong then it is wrong. They killed
<DIV></DIV>>animals means they definitely did crime in the eyes of
<DIV></DIV>>God.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > d) There are various brahmin communities in existence
<DIV></DIV>> > which do eat meat. Of course, this is due to their
<DIV></DIV>> > "religious" beliefs. The Bengali Shakta brahmins do
<DIV></DIV>> > not see anything wrong about eating fish. The
<DIV></DIV>> > kaula-Shaiva Kashmiri brahmins eat meat!
<DIV></DIV>> > It seems that only VaiShNava-s and Astika Shaiva-s
<DIV></DIV>> > place a great emphasis on "vegetarianism". Shaktas
<DIV></DIV>> > and others don't seem to care too
much.
<DIV></DIV>> > Considering this, how accurate would it be to ascribe our
<DIV></DIV>> > sattvic ideal to ahimsa? Shouldn't it be the other way
<DIV></DIV>> > around i.e. ahimsa is something that should be practiced
<DIV></DIV>> > to reach the sattivik level? And by ahimsa, the primary
<DIV></DIV>> > intent is not to cause wilful injury to any living being
<DIV></DIV>> > by thought, word or deed. No?
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > These thoughts have bothered me for quite some time.
<DIV></DIV>> > I request clarification from the list members.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>ciao,
<DIV></DIV>>Manjunath.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>--
<DIV></DIV>>Might is right is the law of jungle
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:47:48 -0500
<DIV></DIV>>From: Ashish Chandra <RAMKISNO at H...>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >> > Reg. vedic rituals involving sacrifices:
<DIV></DIV>> >> This has been discussed before in this list. The opinion
<DIV></DIV>> >> seemed to be that the ONLY allowed meat consumption is that
<DIV></DIV>> >> of the animals sacrificed in a yajna.
<DIV></DIV>> >>
<DIV></DIV>> >Hell with all these sacrifices, how can anyone justify killing,
<DIV></DIV>> >i.e cold blooded murder of some living being which is
<DIV></DIV>> >itself a mainfestation of God. We don't know, what, those
<DIV></DIV>> >who did sacrifices, knew whether it was right or wrong.
<DIV></DIV>> >But if we use our intellect, then you can not kill any
<DIV></DIV>> >organism which is not harming us. It is like how about eating
<DIV></DIV>> >human flesh? Why can't we eat it.
<DIV></DIV>> > Don't these animals have their right to live.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The conditions for the partaking of meat has been described in Manu Smriti
<DIV></DIV>>Chapter V Slokas 26-58.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>http://www.harekrsna.com/science/hearing/manu/manu5.htm
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Briefly, the use of animals has been sanctioned by the Veda that shone
<DIV></DIV>>forth from the very same source that created the universe, and all the
<DIV></DIV>>animals in it. The animals that are sacrificed attain a better state than
<DIV></DIV>>they previously had, and to which they would otherwise have no recourse.
<DIV></DIV>>Some violence and killing is natural for existence - whether it is a lamb
<DIV></DIV>>used in sacrifice or the millions of microbes we kill with every breath.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>ashish
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:13:24 -0500
<DIV></DIV>>From: Anand Hudli <ANANDHUDLI at H...>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:43:19 -0700, Vivek Anand Ganesan <V_GANESAN at Y...>
<DIV></DIV>>wrote:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > Considering this, how accurate would it be to ascribe our
<DIV></DIV>> > sattvic ideal to ahimsa? Shouldn't it be the other way
<DIV></DIV>> > around i.e. ahimsa is something that should be practiced
<DIV></DIV>> > to reach the sattivik level? And by ahimsa, the primary
<DIV></DIV>> > intent is not to cause wilful injury to any living being
<DIV></DIV>> > by thought, word or deed. No?
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >These thoughts have bothered me for quite some time.
<DIV></DIV>> >I request clarification from the list members.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I think the main point here is avoid hypocrisy.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The question, "should we avoid eating meat?" should immediately
<DIV></DIV>>be followed by the question "In what context?" Only then does
<DIV></DIV>>it make sense. In the context of certain Vedic rituals, killing of
<DIV></DIV>>animals is allowed. In all other contexts, killing animals is
<DIV></DIV>>condemned.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>This is similar to having sex. If you ask "Is having sex bad?",
<DIV></DIV>>there will be a counter question "In what context?" Sexual relations
<DIV></DIV>>in the context of marriage is allowed as per our dharma. But sexual
<DIV></DIV>>relations outside of marriage is condemned. But one may ask, "How
<DIV></DIV>>come there are sannyAsins who take up sannyAsa without going through
<DIV></DIV>>marriage?" OK, if you are mentally strong enough to do that, do it
<DIV></DIV>>by all means. But don't be a hypocrite sannyAsin who cherishes
<DIV></DIV>>relations with women. It is far better to be a responsible husband
<DIV></DIV>>who takes care of his family than being a hypocrite, debaucherous
<DIV></DIV>>sannyAsin.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>SImilarly, don't be a hypocrite vegetarian. If you want to avoid
<DIV></DIV>>meat, don't condemn Vedic sacrifices just because you want to
<DIV></DIV>>come across as noble and practising ahiMsA. The Vedic sacrifices
<DIV></DIV>>are beyond blame and all the three AchAryas - Shankara, RAmAnuja,
<DIV></DIV>>and Madhva- agree on this point. Again, don't be a
<DIV></DIV>>hypocrite meat-eater who outwardly praises vegetarianism but
<DIV></DIV>>continues to eat meat. Or, don't justify eating meat by saying that
<DIV></DIV>>our ancestors practised Vedic sacrifices that required animals.
<DIV></DIV>>We cannot selectively take parts of the Vedic sacrifices, the part
<DIV></DIV>>that required killing animals, and justify meat-eating.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>We should learn from the examples of our AchAryas. They themselves never
<DIV></DIV>>ate meat, having taken up sannyAsa, but they never criticized Vedic
<DIV></DIV>>sacrifices as the followers of heterodox schools did.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Anand
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 19:25:53 -0400
<DIV></DIV>>From: Sankaran Aniruddhan <ANIRUDDHAN at E...>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Hi,
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > c) While adhering to the "vegetarian" norm, we Indians
<DIV></DIV>> > ( even Brahmins ) consume caffeinated drinks such as
<DIV></DIV>> > coffee, tea etc. Did our ancestors do this?
<DIV></DIV>> > How is it OK for us to do so?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I suspect that drinking caffeinated drinks may not be very good (similar to alcohol) since it is a (nervous) stimulant.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > d) We have also adopted various "foreign" "vegetables"
<DIV></DIV>> > in
<DIV></DIV>> > our diet. The prime example : the potato. It is an
<DIV></DIV>> > essential part of the Indian diet today. But, it
<DIV></DIV>> > was brought to India by the Europeans. To me, potato
<DIV></DIV>> > ( and other tubers ) violate some very basic notions
<DIV></DIV>> > of ahimsa. While green, leafy vegetables such as
<DIV></DIV>> > spinach are re-generative i.e. does not require us to
<DIV></DIV>> > kill the plant, tubers are under-ground and require
<DIV></DIV>> > the whole plant to be up-rooted. How different is
<DIV></DIV>> > this
<DIV></DIV>> > from killing a chicken to eat its legs?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>How about eating rice? isn't the whole plant killed when the grains are picked? How is ahimsa practised in this case?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > One of my friends once argued that beer is OK as it
<DIV></DIV>> > is vegetarian, made out of grains(barley) and of course,
<DIV></DIV>> > even our Rishis drank soma!!
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I don't think that it has ever been proved that soma is/was an alcoholic drink/stimulant.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Any living thing, if it wants to continue living, needs to interact with the ecological system around it. No human being can live without affecting any other living thing, i.e. I would think it isn't possible to practise "perfect" ahimsa (unless we consider a rishi in a state of deep tapas). What is possible, however, is to keep this interaction to a minimum. Vegetarianism is a good method for doing this. Also, obviously, the "saatvic" concept is also partly valid. But there are also vegetarian foods like garlic and onions which are "Raajasic" (I think) and hence are not cooked on important religious occasions, but are nowadays part of our regular diet.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I've heard other reasons like plants don't have nervous systems like animals, and hence don't feel pain; or they can grow back if parts of them are cut down etc, but they don't seem too convincing...
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I guess the best thing to say would be that its a tradition which has been followed in your family for at least 2500 years (if you believe that buddhism contributed to vegetarianism in India), so you want to follow it too.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>regards,
<DIV></DIV>>Aniruddhan
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Sruti smRti purANAnAm Alayam karuNAlayam
<DIV></DIV>>namAmi bhagavatpAda Sam.karam lokaSam.karam
<DIV></DIV>>-----------------------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>>FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
<DIV></DIV>>Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>End of ADVAITA-L Digest - 2 Apr 2001 to 3 Apr 2001 (#2001-78)
<DIV></DIV>>*************************************************************
<DIV></DIV><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:28:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Yogasutras on Ahimsa
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Although Yoga is not 100% in alignment with Vedanta, many of the tenets of
the two schools are in agreement. The Yogasutras describe Ahimsa as one
of the five restraints (yamas) which form the first step of yoga. Along
with the sanskrit text, I'm giving the English translation of Swami
Hariharananda Aranya (H.A.) from his book "Yoga Philosophy Of Patanjali".
Footnotes and comments in square brackets are mine.
ahiMsAsatyAsteyabrahmacharyAparigrhA yamaH || II.30 ||
[H.A.] Ahimsa (non-injury), satya (truth), asteya (abstention from
stealing), brahmacharya (continence), and aparigraha (abstinence from
avariciousness) are the yamas (forms of restraint).
[On this, the vyasabhashya says;]
tatrAhiMsA sarvathA sarvadA sarvabhUtAnAmanabhidrohaH | uttare cha
yamaniyamAstanmUlAstatsiddhiparatayA tatpratipAdanAya pratipAdyante
tadavadAtarUpakaraNAyaivopAdIyante | tatha choktaM sa khalvayaM brahmaNo
yathA yathA vratAni bahUni samAditsate tathA tathA pramAdakrtebhyo
hiMsanidAnebhyo nivrttamAnastamevAvadAtarupAMahiMsaM karotIti ||
[H.A.] Of these Ahimsa is to abstain from injuring any being, at any time
and in any manner. Truth and other forms of restaints and observances[1]
are based on the spirit of non-injury. They, being the means of fulfilment of
non-injury, have been recommended in the shastras for establishing
Ahimsa. They are also the best means of making Ahimsa pure. That is why
it has been stated in the shastras: "As the Brahmana advances in the
cultivation of the many virtues[2] prescribed for him, he abstains from
acts of injury to others due either to misapprehension or ignorance and
thus purifies within himself, the virtue of Ahimsa."[3]
[H.A.'s commentary] The commentator has given a lucid exposition of
non-injury. Shruti says, "Do not injure any creature"[4] Non-injury is
not merely refraining from injuring animals, but developing and
entertaining feelings of amity towards all living beings. It is not
possible to practice non-injury unless selfishness is given up in respect
of all external matters. To nourish one's own body with the flesh of
another is the chief form of inflicting injury. Besides, seeking one's
own comfort inevitably causing pain to others. To frighten others, to
hurt them with rude words etc. are acts of injury. Truth and other forms
of restraints and observances weaken the selfish tendencies of greed and
envy, and thereby make Ahimsa all the purer.
Since the killing of living beings is unavoidable in the course of one's
life, some people wonder how it can be possible to practice non-injury.
This doubt arises out of ignorance of the principle of non-injury. The
commentator has said that enjoyment of material objects is not possible
without hurting others (vide. II.15) Therefore in order to live, hurting
living beings is inevitable. Knowing that, the Yogins practice Yoga in
order to avoid being born again. This is the highest form of practice of
non-injury. To refrain, as far as possible, from inflicting injury on
trees and animals is the next form and the third is to void, as far as
possible, infliction of pain on the higher animals. Briefly, the spirit
of non-injury is abandonment of the evil tendencies such as malice,
hatred, etc. from which arises the propensity to inflict injury on living
beings. Unless there is an underlying feeling of cruelty, one's action
resulting in the death of even one's parents is not regarded as an act of
violence from social or spiritual point of view. There are grades of
harmful acts. Injuring one's children or parents and killing an assailant
are not the same, because no one can do the former unless there is
intensely vile cruelty in him. The vileness of one's injurious acts
varies with the intensity of evil intention in one's heart. That is why
killing a man and cutting a blade of grass do not involve the same amount
of cruelty. Again hurting a man with rude words is not the same as
killing him. Killing an assailant and felling trees etc. are not
regarded as cruelty at all by ordinary men since they get involved in such
acts in self-defence and the like, and these do not debase them further.
That is why Manu has said that for ordinary men there is nothing wrong in
taking meat which they do out of natural propensity, but to desist from it
produces excellent results.[5]
So far for ordinary men, But for Yogins observance of Ahimsa is a supreme
vow; that is why they try their best to practice harmlessness. First,
they refrain from doing harm to human beings--even to an attacker--and
commit as little harm as possible to animals even to the extent of
frightening away a snake instead of killing it. Next they practice
harmlessness to plant life. This is how Yogins, in spite of their having
to commit unavoidable harm in the mildest form,go on intensifying the
spirit of non-injury and ultimately through proficiency in Yoga get
liberated from embodied existence[6] and thus make themselves
non-injurious to all creatures. Cleansing of the heart is the aim of the
practice of Yoga angas.
[commentary on the othe yamas omitted.]
te tu
[H.A.] These (the restraints,)
jAtideshakAlasamayAnavachhinnaH sArvabhaumA mahAvratam || II. 31 ||
[H.A.] However, (become a) great vow when they become universal, being
unrestricted by any consideration of class, place, time or concept of
duty.
tatrA'hiMsA jatyavacchinnA matsyabandhakasya matsyeShveva nAnyatra hiMsA |
saiva deshAvacchinnA na tirthe haniShyAmIti | saiva kAlavacchinna na
chaturdashyAM na puNye'hani haniShyAmIti | saiva tribhiruparatasya
samayAvacchinnA devabrAhmaNArthe nAnyathA haniShyAmIti yatha cha
kshatriyANAM yuddha eva hiMsA nAnyatreti |
ebhirjAtideshakAlasamayairanavacchinnA ahiMsAdayaH sarvathaiva
paripAlanIyAH sarvabhUmiShu sarvaviShayeShu sarvathaivAviditavyabhichArAH
sArvabhaumA mahAvratamityuchyate ||
[H.A.] The example of non-injury restricted by class is the case of the
fisherman's non-injury to all except to fish. Harmlessness limited to
place is practicing non-killing only in holy places not elsewhere, while
that limited to period is observance of non-killing on a particular sacred
day. Harmlessness though not so limited might be restricted by the idea
of duty e.g. observance of sacrifice of animals only to propitiate deities
or for feeding of Brahmanas[7] and not for any other purpose. Another
instance is of Kshatriyas commiting violence in war as a matter of duty,
and practicing harmlessness at other times. Thus the restraints,
harmlessness, truth, etc. should be observed universally irrespective of
class, place, period or customary duty. When they are observed in every
instance, on all subjects without fail in any way, they attain
universality and are called great vows.
[H.A.'s commentary] Every devotee practices some form or another of
harmlessnss etc. but Yogins practice them in their totality. Hence in
their case these are universal and are called great vows.
"matter of duty" = fighting being the duty of a Kshatriya, Arjuna had to
fight. That is violence enjoined by customary duty. Yogins, however,
practice non-injury everywhere and always.[8]
[1] niyama -- the second step of Yoga.
[2] I disagree with the translation of vrata as "virtue" here, despite the
etymological similarity. A vrata is a religious or moral obligation. In
fact later on, H.A. translates it as "vow" which makes more sense.
[3][4] Which shastras are these quotes from?
[5] Manusmrti 5th adhyaya
[6] Note the wording here. Samkhya/Yoga is essentially dualistic.
Liberation is not absorption into Brahman but freedom from material
embodiment.
[7] I.e. for yagnas.
[8] Here is an example of where Yoga and Vedanta part ways. No Vedantin
of any stripe would condemn Arjuna for doing his dharmic duty even though
it involved violence.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Soma, according to the Vedic and Ayurvedic scriptures
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:11:32 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Shri Malolan Cadambi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>This is not "Soma", From the Sruthi Prasthana it is clearly know
that
"soma" is NOT AN ALCOHOLIC DRINK. By the way, there can be no other
greater pramAna than the Sruthi Prasthana (part of the prasthAna
tryA)....................etc.....
Taittiriya Brahmana 1-3-3 makes this very clear. It states very clearly,
"surA is the dirt of anna (wheat etc.). Dirt is pApa (sin). Therefore
drinking surA is a sin". "soma is the greatest food of the Devatas and surA
is the dirtiest food of the lower people." "Soma is the light of Brahman".
Therefore, soma is not surA. But, what is surA? It is something to drink
maid out of putrid wheat etc. This fairly becomes clear from the above
statement. On the other hand, soma is a juice of a plant, which was thought
to be a purifier. And therefore sAyaNa quotes, "a Brahmana, who doesn't
drink soma, should be thrown out from the community". The plant was crushed
and the juice came out, in this way it was a fresh juice, and not surA,
(which is maid out of putrid things). Now the question arises weather this
juice was intoxicating or causing hallucination or not? A study of Sushruta
Samhita (Cikitsaa Sthaana Chapter 29) makes it quite clear. It must have
been a very high sort of medicine, and nowhere, including bhaavaprakaash and
raaja-nirghanta (which mention all the qualities of evey medicine/plant),
something like intoxication is mentioned in its qualities. Therefore, my
statement was not correct.
However, what I still want to say, that this sort of highly purifying
medicine has been taken in the Vedas, at least in Rig-veda, as a symbol to
Supreme Knowledge and in fact, it is even not this medicine, which is meant
in the Vedas, at least in Rig-veda, by the word soma. The Brahmana
scriptures might mean it, but not Rig-veda. That becomes very evident by
this hymn of The Holy Rishikaa Suryaa, "those who grind a plant, they think
we have drunken Soma. But the Soma which is known to the hymns (of
Rig-veda), no body drinks out of that"
(Rig-veda 10-85-3).
Vedic Statements, like "we have drinken soma, therefore we have become
immortal" make it very clear that *soma* is Supreme Self Realization. As
Shukla Yajur Veda makes it very clear, "only by knowing That, a person
trancends death, there is no other path to reach the Supreme Abode".
But, indeed it was not anything intoxicating which has been takes as a
symbol, but it was something which used to purify. Bhavaprakaasha tells us,
"it is tridoshaghna, i.e. it kills the disorders created by vAta, pitta and
kapha. And raaja-nirghanta tells us, "it is pAvani", i.e. it purifies. I
think, this should make it clear. And the rest which is created by the
so-called scholars, should be left apart, as everything written by them is
merely a speculation. Isn't it?
Sorry for my previous statements, however it was confusion.
Loving
>From ravi <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 08:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-980993220-986399460=:60955"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: ravi <owner-advaita-l at L...>
--0-980993220-986399460=:60955
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>It is a shame for us, that our own scholars and such great scholars
>stated something like that, purely not have been studying the Vedas.
>That can be the only >cause why they state something like that. Sorry,
>for the rude words. But I can't bear something like this against the Vedas,
>because I can see that it is not >like that
i am really sorry, if i have hurt u. i havent read whole Vedas ,
but i know that vedas are having "hymns" , Brahmanas , Aranyakas & Upanishads.
The brahmanas contains sacrifices (or rituals) to be done . Aranyakas also contains nearly
same ( changes while shifting from Grihastasram to Vanaprasta) . Upanishads
really contain the most useful thoughts.
I said that the part of vedas which are having only about
sacrifices ( i.e mantras etc) is useless ( in the sence ,that it doesnt
increase our knowledge about life, it is only
for those who think that, by chanting them they can make gods happy,
which deviates totally from ADVAITA VEDANTA thought) .
I havent said that WHOLE vedas are useless ,
I said only the last part of Vedas (i.e vedanta ) is the useful one.
about the comment on scholoars ,
i think their view point was from philosophical side . U can also see the Vedas
(here i mean the part containg "mantras" ,not the whole).
from religious view point . I wont try to transform others view point , but
i stress that , the scholor 'from his view point' is correct .
thanks
-ravi
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
--0-980993220-986399460=:60955
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P>>It is a shame for us, that our own scholars and such great scholars <BR>>stated something like that, purely not have been studying the Vedas. <BR>>That can be the only >cause why they state something like that. Sorry, <BR>>for the rude words. But I can't bear something like this against the Vedas, <BR>>because I can see that it is not >like that
<P> i am really sorry, if i have hurt u. i havent read whole Vedas , <BR>but i know that vedas are having "hymns" , Brahmanas , Aranyakas & Upanishads.<BR>The brahmanas contains sacrifices (or rituals) to be done . Aranyakas also contains nearly <BR>same ( changes while shifting from Grihastasram to Vanaprasta) . Upanishads <BR>really contain the most useful thoughts.<BR>I said that the part of vedas which are having only about<BR>sacrifices ( i.e mantras etc) is useless ( in the sence ,that it doesnt<BR> increase our knowledge about life, it is only <BR>for those who think that, by chanting them they can make gods happy, <BR>which deviates totally from ADVAITA VEDANTA thought) .
<P>I havent said that WHOLE vedas are useless ,<BR>I said only the last part of Vedas (i.e vedanta ) is the useful one.
<P>about the comment on scholoars ,<BR> i think their view point was from philosophical side . U can also see the Vedas<BR>(here i mean the part containg "mantras" ,not the whole). <BR>from religious view point . I wont try to transform others view point , but<BR>i stress that , the scholor 'from his view point' is correct .<BR></P>
<P>thanks<BR>-ravi</P><p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
<a href="http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=mailiyfoot">Yahoo! Mail Personal Address</a> -
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo!
>From =?iso-8859-1?q?Malolan=20Cadambi?= <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re:Vegetarianism in the vedas
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Malolan=20Cadambi?= <owner-advaita-l at L...>
sri:
Dear Sri Siddhartha Krishna,
You mentioned:
> What I think, it is somehow like this:
> You must have heard the great mystic saints Sufi saints using the
> word
> "sharaab" (wine). But indeed everybody knows that they don't mean
> the
> physical wine, but the wine of self-realization. It is the same
> with the
> word "soma", which has been used by our great mystic Rishi's, in
> the meaning
> of self-realization.
> Indeed, there existed something intoxicating in that time, which
> people used
> to drink.
This is not "Soma", From the Sruthi Prasthana it is clearly know that
"soma" is NOT AN ALCOHOLIC DRINK. By the way, there can be no other
greater pramAna than the Sruthi Prasthana (part of the prasthAna
tryA)
What I am refering to is "SurA" which IS PHYSICALLY INTOXICATING
ALCOHOL. There are a lot of Subaashitaas which note the bad effects
of alcohol or surA.
For example :
madhyapAne branthE chittE pApacharyAmupaithihi ||
I do not know the entire subaashitaa as I learnt the subaashita
nearly 3 years back, in my high school.
No, I did not "hear about 'sharaab'" as you claim I would have. It
was clear to me what the difference was between "SomA" and "SurA".
According to your own emails, you also quoted from the Sruthi
Prasthana that Soma does not refer to an alcoholic drink. Here then,
why do you feel that I am trying to refer to "sharaab"???
Hence it is clear from the Sruthi that Soma is NOT AN ALCOHOLIC
DRINK.There is no room for an kind of ambiguity any more, since the
proof is directly know from the Sruthi PrasthAna.
I highly reccomend members to read the article on Soma.
Regards,
Malolan Cadambi
"Jayatu Jayatu DevO DevakI NandanOyam"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>From Prasad Sreekanta <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:15:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Prasad Sreekanta <owner-advaita-l at L...>
pranam all,
From the resulting discussion, it seems like we could not possibly
arrive at a conclusion as to what to eat and what not. Let us accept the
fact that we cannot conclude on this issue in the same way as we cannot
conclude on the existence of god.
The following points should be noted:
1. Practice of Ahimsa. (Aatmavat sarva Bhutaani)
2. How would the food influence a person's thinking and behaviour
(satvic, rajas, tamas)
3. Practice followed in his/her heriditary chain
4. How true are we to our own conscience in doing so.
5. What is Dharma from an individual's standpoint and how close
is he in practicing it.
Recently, i saw an article which mentions that in Taiwan, bodies
of dead foetuses and babies are being sold at $50 to $75 Taiwan
dollars. I have heard of animals doing this. Are we humans getting
close to becoming animals? Of course there are instances where
man showed his animal behaviour to satisfy sexual needs.
"Dharmo Rakshathi RakshithaHa"
hari
>From "Anand Hudli" <anandhudli at h...>
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:05:21
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Anand Hudli" <anandhudli at h...>
>Dear Ananda ji,
>You wrote:
>"The Vedic sacrifices
>are beyond blame and all the three AchAryas - Shankara, RAmAnuja,
>and Madhva- agree on this point"
>
>I think you are missing a point. It is well-known about Madhvacharya, that
>he ordered his brother to use idols, instead of animals. All the scholars
>who were against it, lost the debate with Madhvacharya. He stated that in
>fact Vedas don't teach animal sacrifice.
>Isn't it like that?
Pranaam Siddhartha Krishna-ji,
When I said all three AchAryas agreed on the point, I meant
as stated in their respective sutra-bhAShyas.
Please see Madhva's commentary on the sUtra:
ashuddhamiti chenna shabdaat.h ||
Madhva's commentary:
hiMsArUpatvAt.h pApasyApi saMbhavAd.h duHkhaM cha bhavati-iti
chenna | shabdavihitatvAt.h |
hiMsA tvavaidikI yA tu tayA .anartho dhruvaM bhavet.h |
vedoktayA hiMsayA tu naivAnarthaH kathaMchana || iti hi vArAhe
If you say that sacrifices, being of the nature of hiMsA (killing),
are impure, and (hence) lead to sin and (as a consequence) to
sorrow, we say no. Because, (the Yajnas) are enjoined by the shruti.
(In support of this) the varAha-purANa says:
That hiMsA (killing) which is not Vedic will certainly result
in evil. But by hiMsA done in accordance with the Vedas, there
cannot at all arise evil in any way.
Although Madhva is known to have had a rather terse writing
style, still the commentary above leaves no doubt regarding his
position on Vedic sacrifices as far as his sUtra bhAShya is
concerned, a position which can be taken as authentic. It is
possible that he is also attributed the position of opposing animal
sacrifices in Vedas. How to explain these contradictory positions
is beyond my knowledge of MAdhva literature, but not necessarily
beyond the knowledge of some other members of the list, such as
Shrisha Rao.
Anand
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Spiritual Power
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:01:26 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01C0BDFA.6EE13320"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C0BDFA.6EE13320
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Atman,
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (3-5-1) tells us, baalyena tishthaaset, i.e. "we s=
hould remain in our state of powerfulness".
What I think, every person in this world has endless problems before him. E=
very body has to face them and try to overcome them with his powers, I mean=
with mental, physical or spiritual powers. Therefore, we always should rem=
ain powerful, physically, mentally and spiritually.
A true religion should make us powerful on all these three levels. Not to h=
arm others indeed, but for our own protection. Vedism and Veda related scri=
ptures teach us Yoga Asanas for to remain physically powerful. They teach u=
s mind-controlling techniques, called Dhyana or meditation, for to remain m=
entally powerful. And They teach us an alternative way of living, some code=
s of conduct, some universally applicable rules, for to remain spiritually =
powerful.
However, spiritual power is the greatest power. Even people, who lack physi=
cal or mental power, are very much powerful when they gain spiritual power.=
This sort of power can only be gained by the help of obeying to the rules =
described by the Vedic texts. A person who obeys Vedas, in their true signi=
ficance, would become spiritually the most powerful person. I can just reme=
mber for now a statement of the Upanishads, "This Self can not be realized =
by a person, who lacks power". Which sort of power is meant here? Indeed, S=
piritual Power.
Therefore, let us walk on the path as described in the Vedas, towards the a=
bode of this Spiritual Power. When once this sort of power is obtained, a p=
erson becomes the most powerful in this universe. He doesn't become a Super=
man, but a superhuman, like Rama, Krishna, Christ, Buddha, Mahavira etc. He=
rules the entire universe. Indeed, he doesn't rule the nations, but he rul=
es the heart of the people living in those nations. And I think, the first =
manifestation of this Spiritual Power is "unconditioned Love towards everyb=
ody". As the Vedic Seer prays, "O my Lord! May I always look at all with a =
friendly eye", mitrasya-aham cakshushaa sarvaani bhuutaani samiikshe (Yajur=
Veda).
Only a very powerful person can really love. Love is not something which is=
for a weak person. A weak person might be able to love those who love him,=
but he would never be able to love those who hate him. That can only be do=
ne by a Superhuman. Let us try to become something like that. Whatever we t=
ry sincerely becomes true one day. We just should try that we should not be=
deceived by things, like hatred, jealousy etc. All these things can only b=
e forsaken by the help of Spiritual Power.
Our scriptures, like Veda, Upanishad, Gita, Bible, etc., teach us those Spi=
ritual exercises, which create Spiritual Muscles.
Loving Regards,
Siddhartha
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Om Shantih, Shantih, Shantih, Om
(Om Peace, Peace, Peace, Om)
=B0 "da da da" (Control your self! Give to others! Have compassion towards
all! - The three Vedic commandments)
=B0 =B0 my e-mail address: siddharthakrishna at v...
=B0 =B0 =B0 Like to read about Vedism? please visit:
http://www.geocities.com/vedism/ or
http://members.nbci.com/siddharthakrishna/
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C0BDFA.6EE13320
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3></=
FONT>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Dear Atman,</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (3-5-1) tells us, baalyena=20
tishthaaset, i.e. "we should remain in our state of powerfulness".</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>What I think, every person in this world has endless p=
roblems=20
before him. Every body has to face them and try to overcome them with his=20
powers, I mean with mental, physical or spiritual powers. Therefore, we alw=
ays=20
should remain powerful, physically, mentally and spiritually.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>A true religion should make us powerful on all these t=
hree=20
levels. Not to harm others indeed, but for our own protection. Vedism and V=
eda=20
related scriptures teach us Yoga Asanas for to remain physically powerful. =
They=20
teach us mind-controlling techniques, called Dhyana or meditation, for to r=
emain=20
mentally powerful. And They teach us an alternative way of living, some cod=
es of=20
conduct, some universally applicable rules, for to remain spiritually=20
powerful.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>However, spiritual power is the greatest power. Even p=
eople,=20
who lack physical or mental power, are very much powerful when they gain=20
spiritual power. This sort of power can only be gained by the help of obeyi=
ng to=20
the rules described by the Vedic texts. A person who obeys Vedas, in their =
true=20
significance, would become spiritually the most powerful person. I can just=
=20
remember for now a statement of the Upanishads, "This Self can not be reali=
zed=20
by a person, who lacks power". Which sort of power is meant here? Indeed,=20
Spiritual Power.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Therefore, let us walk on the path as described in the=
Vedas,=20
towards the abode of this Spiritual Power. When once this sort of power is=
=20
obtained, a person becomes the most powerful in this universe. He doesn't b=
ecome=20
a Superman, but a superhuman, like Rama, Krishna, Christ, Buddha, Mahavira =
etc.=20
He rules the entire universe. Indeed, he doesn't rule the nations, but he r=
ules=20
the heart of the people living in those nations. And I think, the first=20
manifestation of this Spiritual Power is "unconditioned Love towards everyb=
ody".=20
As the Vedic Seer prays, "O my Lord! May I always look at all with a friend=
ly=20
eye", mitrasya-aham cakshushaa sarvaani bhuutaani samiikshe (Yajur Veda).</=
P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Only a very powerful person can really love. Love is n=
ot=20
something which is for a weak person. A weak person might be able to love t=
hose=20
who love him, but he would never be able to love those who hate him. That c=
an=20
only be done by a Superhuman. Let us try to become something like that. Wha=
tever=20
we try sincerely becomes true one day. We just should try that we should no=
t be=20
deceived by things, like hatred, jealousy etc. All these things can only be=
=20
forsaken by the help of Spiritual Power.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Our scriptures, like Veda, Upanishad, Gita, Bible, etc=
.,=20
teach us those Spiritual exercises, which create Spiritual Muscles.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Loving Regards,</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Siddhartha</P></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<BR>Om=20
Shantih, Shantih, Shantih, Om<BR>(Om Peace, Peace, Peace, Om)<BR>=B0 "da da=
da"=20
(Control your self! Give to others! Have compassion towards<BR>all! - The t=
hree=20
Vedic commandments)<BR>=B0 =B0 my e-mail address: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:siddharthakrishna at v...">siddharthakrishna at v...</A><B=
R>=B0 =B0 =B0=20
Like to read about Vedism? please visit:<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.geocities.com/vedism/">http://www.geocities.com/vedism/<=
/A>=20
or<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://members.nbci.com/siddharthakrishna/">http://members.nbci.com=
>From "Ramkumar N.S.M." <nramkuma at A...>
Subject: Re: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:43:09 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Ramkumar N.S.M." <nramkuma at A...>
Sri Vaadiraja Theertha, an illustrious saint in Madhva lineage, has upheld
sacrifices in his work "Pashandamata Khandanam", which mainly refutes
Jainism. I don't think Sri Vaadiraja Theerthas position would be differrent
from that of Sri Madhva.
Many also advocate use of "pishta pashu" instead of real pashu but when in
principle sacrifice is condemned, why should one use any pashu at all?
Regards,
Ramkumar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at V...>
To: <ADVAITA-L at L...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
> Dear Ananda ji,
> You wrote:
> "The Vedic sacrifices
> are beyond blame and all the three AchAryas - Shankara, RAmAnuja,
> and Madhva- agree on this point"
>
> I think you are missing a point. It is well-known about Madhvacharya, that
> he ordered his brother to use idols, instead of animals. All the scholars
> who were against it, lost the debate with Madhvacharya. He stated that in
> fact Vedas don't teach animal sacrifice.
> Isn't it like
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:07:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: ADMIN: server problems again
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Sorry, it happened again. Looks like all the queued mail has gone out now
though.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...
>From Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:05:51 -0500
Subject: Existence of God (was Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas)
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:15:03 -0700, Prasad Sreekanta <psreekan at C...>
wrote:
>pranam all,
> From the resulting discussion, it seems like we could not possibly
>arrive at a conclusion as to what to eat and what not. Let us accept the
>fact that we cannot conclude on this issue in the same way as we cannot
^^^^^^^^^
>conclude on the existence of god.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
Dear Sreekant,
Why do you think we cannot conclude on the existence of God. If anything,
logic employed in the proper way will lead to no other thing but the
existence of God. Maybe this will become an interesting discussion
especially for us novices(like myself) in the field of Advaita. I look
forward to
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:23:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: New member introduction: Erama Kiruttinan
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
My name is Erama Kiruttinan.I have great respect for Adi Shankaracharya.
To be honest, I am not an authority on Advaita-vedanta. At the most I'm a
sincere student of this school of
>From Prasad Sreekanta <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:31:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Existence of God (was Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Prasad Sreekanta <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Dear Ashish,
What i meant was, the argument would simply continue in a loop
in the same way as we try to persuade a "Naasthik" to beleive the
existence of god. We all agree there are 2 categories of people
"Aastika" and "Naastika". I think this classification is already
done just not to get into an endless argument with "Naastikas".
There is a saying in Samskrita:
"Sarvasyoushadam Asti, Shastra vihitam, MurkHasya naasthyoushadam"
hari om,
sreekanta.
Ashish Chandra wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:15:03 -0700, Prasad Sreekanta <psreekan at C...>
> wrote:
>
> >pranam all,
> > From the resulting discussion, it seems like we could not possibly
> >arrive at a conclusion as to what to eat and what not. Let us accept the
> >fact that we cannot conclude on this issue in the same way as we cannot
> ^^^^^^^^^
> >conclude on the existence of god.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
>
> Dear Sreekant,
>
> Why do you think we cannot conclude on the existence of God. If anything,
> logic employed in the proper way will lead to no other thing but the
> existence of God. Maybe this will become an interesting discussion
> especially for us novices(like myself) in the field of Advaita. I look
> forward to it.
>
>
>From Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:30:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Existence of God (was Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas)
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:31:38 -0700, Prasad Sreekanta <psreekan at C...>
wrote:
>Dear Ashish,
> What i meant was, the argument would simply continue in a loop
>in the same way as we try to persuade a "Naasthik" to beleive the
>existence of god. We all agree there are 2 categories of people
>"Aastika" and "Naastika". I think this classification is already
>done just not to get into an endless argument with "Naastikas".
>
>There is a saying in Samskrita:
>
Dear Sreekant,
>From what I know, the Astika and NAstika argument is not simply relegated
to the existence or non-existence of God. The Shunya of Madhyamika Buddhism
was thoroughly refuted by Shri Gaudapada (correct me if this is incorrect
Nanda) and shown to be ultimately the Absolute of Advaita.
One a more mundane level, most of us have a conception of God as being an
entity which is different from us. Even though we may believe in Him, we
think He is different from us. I think that one does not, initially, have
to *know*, as a Yogi does, that God is his very self. Only that we are a
part of Him and not separated from Him. A small amount of logic will show
us that there is an animating principle that makes us cognize, aware, even
if its duality we're aware of, for now. Why else would a dead body not feel
pain or hear the wails of grieving women? That there is an "I" that is not
just the body is easy to deduce from this, is it not? Then there are the
three states each one of us goes through every day and night - waking,
dreaming and deep sleep. There is a persistent "I" that exists without any
knowledge of our body or our mind. That too can be deduced from one's
everyday experience. The logical problem I faced with this rationale was
with finding the locus of this persistent entity. Since I could not place
it anywhere, I placed it everywhere because it is not that it does not
exist, and not placing it anywhere does not make sense with something that
exists, do you not agree? So we are left with direct experience of
something that logically has no locus and yet exists. In our state, we
don't know its true nature. Our Acharyas have called this as avidyA. But
from the simple fact that it does exist, I am *encouraged* to follow those
who can say a lot more about this entity.
That what I am in possession of is an intelligent principle is also
logically deducible. Its nature is consciousness is also fairly obvious.
Our Acharyas have called this as the Sat-Chit-Ananda absolute that alone
is. Our bodies etc, made up of the five elements are again traced back to
the same source. There is therefore, as far as I am concerned, more than
enough evidence of an intelligent all-pervading principle. There is more to
It, of course, that we don't know yet. But that is why we have the
tradition - Shishtaachaar, the conduct of men established in truth. One can
call this principle whatever one likes, but its existence cannot be denied.
That is what I believe.
Maybe there are errors in my logical deduction. But please point them out
or else I would not easily know what they
>From Prasad Sreekanta <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 15:36:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Existence of God (was Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Prasad Sreekanta <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Dear Ashish ji,
Thank u for ur elaboration on the subject. I observe that there
are some interesting points that initially i had doubts about. I
strongly
beleive the idea that God is within self which is the main
essence of the Advaitha Philosophy. i will go thru ur thoughts at
leisure and get back to u if i have any doubts,
hari om,
sreekanta.
Ashish Chandra wrote:
>
> Dear Sreekant,
>
> From what I know, the Astika and NAstika argument is not simply relegated
> to the existence or non-existence of God. The Shunya of Madhyamika Buddhism
> was thoroughly refuted by Shri Gaudapada (correct me if this is incorrect
> Nanda) and shown to be ultimately the Absolute of Advaita.
>
> One a more mundane level, most of us have a conception of God as being an
> entity which is different from us. Even though we may believe in Him, we
> think He is different from us. I think that one does not, initially, have
> to *know*, as a Yogi does, that God is his very self. Only that we are a
> part of Him and not separated from Him. A small amount of logic will show
> us that there is an animating principle that makes us cognize, aware, even
> if its duality we're aware of, for now. Why else would a dead body not feel
> pain or hear the wails of grieving women? That there is an "I" that is not
> just the body is easy to deduce from this, is it not? Then there are the
> three states each one of us goes through every day and night - waking,
> dreaming and deep sleep. There is a persistent "I" that exists without any
> knowledge of our body or our mind. That too can be deduced from one's
> everyday experience. The logical problem I faced with this rationale was
> with finding the locus of this persistent entity. Since I could not place
> it anywhere, I placed it everywhere because it is not that it does not
> exist, and not placing it anywhere does not make sense with something that
> exists, do you not agree? So we are left with direct experience of
> something that logically has no locus and yet exists. In our state, we
> don't know its true nature. Our Acharyas have called this as avidyA. But
> from the simple fact that it does exist, I am *encouraged* to follow those
> who can say a lot more about this entity.
>
> That what I am in possession of is an intelligent principle is also
> logically deducible. Its nature is consciousness is also fairly obvious.
> Our Acharyas have called this as the Sat-Chit-Ananda absolute that alone
> is. Our bodies etc, made up of the five elements are again traced back to
> the same source. There is therefore, as far as I am concerned, more than
> enough evidence of an intelligent all-pervading principle. There is more to
> It, of course, that we don't know yet. But that is why we have the
> tradition - Shishtaachaar, the conduct of men established in truth. One can
> call this principle whatever one likes, but its existence cannot be denied.
> That is what I believe.
>
> Maybe there are errors in my logical deduction. But please point them out
> or else I would not easily know what they were.
>
>
>From Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Three guNas and the vedas
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...>
Hello all :
Many thanks to ShrI Siddhartha Krishna-ji for his
illuminating insights ( and please, just "vivek" would do.
I am as yet undeserving of any salute of reverence ).
My question was based on the following bhagavad gItA verse
:
traiguNyavishhayA vedA nistraiguNyo bhavArjuna |
nirdvandvo nityasattvastho niryogakshema AtmavAn.h ||
(shrimad bhagavad gItA, Chapter 2, verse 45 )
Here, it is clearly indicated that the vedas are about
the three guNas. It also seems to indicate that the one
established in Atman ( AtmavAn ), should rise above the
three guNas. But, later it states that one should always
be engaged in the sattvic state. For someone already
established in Atman is beyond sattva, is he/she not?
Thanks in advance,
-Vivek.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>From "V Chandrasekaran" <vchandra at a...>
Subject: Ahimsa in Hinduism - honest thinking
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:30:43 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02F3_01C0BEAE.8AE4C7D0"
From: "V Chandrasekaran" <vchandra at a...>
------=_NextPart_000_02F3_01C0BEAE.8AE4C7D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Members,
Many people have contributed a lots to this discussion and on vegetariani=
sm.
Reading many of these posts, it's possible some people would tend to think
that Hinduism is hypocritic. I would like to present certain aspects of our
dharma here to undeceive this notion and show the most appealing attribute
that our dharma possesses.
Thinking about the Hindu lore about a butcher "dharmavyaadha" (?) who is =
held=20
holy (in Sriimadh bhaagawatha??) it's true that Hinduism doesn't emphasise =
on=20
ahimsa like the naastika mathaa viz., Jainism and Buddhism do. Hinduism doe=
sn't=20
enjoin an unconditional ahimsa though it proclaims it as a Supreme Dharma.=
=20
Please read on.
Thinking more about this, Hinduism sounds more practical. Because if ahim=
sa=20
were to have been followed to such a strict order by the pristine living=20
beings, it's quite understandable the world wouldn't be what it is today. L=
ife=20
lives on life. But Hinduism doesn't stop there and approve of licentious=20
killing and exploitation. Hinduism declares non-killing as a Supreme dharma=
and=20
tells the merits of ahimsa in various ways. This is the only way it can mak=
e=20
the mentally and spiritually evolved beings to start thinking discreetly=20
towards the more sublime, humane ways of life but at the same time consider=
ing=20
the practicality of life which is important for less spiritually evolved=20
beings. But all this time Hinduism drives people constantly towards the=20
sublimest state of living which it thunders is "showing compassion towards =
all=20
fellow beings".
This is most appealing of Hinduism as a sanaathana dharmaa that it takes =
a=20
global picture of the life on earth and proclaims ways of living, all the t=
ime=20
leading the living beings to the next higher spiritual stage. Hinduism take=
s an=20
honest approach to life, IMO. It doesn't shirk its duty as a religion and a=
t=20
the same time doesn't over-rule with impractical orders. It's a caring Moth=
er=20
of many kinds of children to draw an analogy.
This is no liberalism. A spiritually evolved one will choose the life tha=
t is=20
sublime. A not-so evolved one will continue in his/her own ways and eventua=
lly=20
turn to sublime ways. Hinduism knows that enforcing sublime ways on a less=
=20
evolved being won't be fruitful. As an efficient teacher who would prescrib=
e=20
different paths to his disciples depending on the latter's state of evoluti=
on,
so does our dharma lead its followers in different traits.
Thus the caring Mother rears her many kinds of children depending on thei=
r=20
character and *finally* secures them at their Father's abode.
Regards,
chandrasekaran.
=20
------=_NextPart_000_02F3_01C0BEAE.8AE4C7D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" http-equiv=3DContent-Type=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>Dear Members,</DIV>
<DIV> Many people have contributed a lots to this discussion and on=20
vegetarianism.</DIV>
<DIV>Reading many of these posts, it's possible some people would tend to=20
think</DIV>
<DIV>that Hinduism is hypocritic. I would like to present certain aspects o=
f=20
our</DIV>
<DIV>dharma here to undeceive this notion and show the most appealing=20
attribute</DIV>
<DIV>that our dharma possesses.</DIV>
<DIV> Thinking about the Hindu lore about a butcher "dharmavyaad=
ha"=20
(?) who is held </DIV>
<DIV>holy (in Sriimadh bhaagawatha??) it's true that Hinduism doesn't=
=20
emphasise on </DIV>
<DIV>ahimsa like the naastika mathaa viz., Jainism and Buddhism do. Hinduis=
m=20
doesn't </DIV>
<DIV>enjoin an unconditional ahimsa though it proclaims it as a Supreme Dha=
rma.=20
</DIV>
<DIV>Please read on.</DIV>
<DIV> Thinking more about this, Hinduism sounds more practical.=
=20
Because if ahimsa </DIV>
<DIV>were to have been followed to such a strict order by the pristine=
=20
living </DIV>
<DIV>beings, it's quite understandable the world wouldn't be what it is tod=
ay.=20
Life </DIV>
<DIV>lives on life. But Hinduism doesn't stop there and approve of licentio=
us=20
</DIV>
<DIV>killing and exploitation. Hinduism declares non-killing as a Supreme d=
harma=20
and </DIV>
<DIV>tells the merits of ahimsa in various ways. This is the only way it ca=
n=20
make </DIV>
<DIV>the mentally and spiritually evolved beings to start thinking discreet=
ly=20
</DIV>
<DIV>towards the more sublime, humane ways of life but at the same time=20
considering </DIV>
<DIV>the practicality of life which is important for less spiritually evolv=
ed=20
</DIV>
<DIV>beings. But all this time Hinduism drives people constantly towar=
ds=20
the </DIV>
<DIV>sublimest state of living which it thunders is "showing compassion tow=
ards=20
all </DIV>
<DIV>fellow beings".</DIV>
<DIV> This is most appealing of Hinduism as a sanaathana dharmaa that=
it=20
takes a </DIV>
<DIV>global picture of the life on earth and proclaims ways of living,=
all=20
the time </DIV>
<DIV>leading the living beings to the next higher spiritual stage.<FONT siz=
e=3D3>=20
Hinduism takes an </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3>honest approach to life, IMO. It </FONT>doesn't shirk i=
ts duty=20
as a religion and at </DIV>
<DIV>the same time doesn't over-rule with impractical orders. It's a c=
aring=20
Mother </DIV>
<DIV>of many kinds of children to draw an analogy.</DIV>
<DIV> This is no liberalism. A spiritually evolved one will choose th=
e=20
life that is </DIV>
<DIV>sublime. A not-so evolved one will continue in his/her own ways and=20
eventually </DIV>
<DIV>turn to sublime ways. Hinduism knows that enforcing sublime ways =
on a=20
less </DIV>
<DIV>evolved being won't be fruitful. As an efficient teacher who would=20
prescribe </DIV>
<DIV>different paths to his disciples depending on the latter's state of=20
evolution,</DIV>
<DIV>so does our dharma lead its followers in different traits.</DIV>
<DIV> Thus the caring Mother rears her many kinds of children=20
depending on their </DIV>
<DIV>character and *finally* secures them at their Father's abode.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Regards,</DIV>
<DIV> chandrasekaran.</DIV>
<DIV>
>From Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:47:51 -0500
Subject: "Faith and Idol Worship"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
I read this humourous story about faith and idol worship in Swami
Sivananda's book "The Philosphy and Significance of Idol Worship" at
http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/download/idolworship.htm
---
Puran ChandÂ’s Guru had initiated him into the Narayana Mantra and given him
a small Murti (idol) of Lord Narayana for worship. Puran was regular in his
worship and did not omit repetition of the sacred Mantra, but there was no
sign of the idol blessing him; so he went to his Guru and asked him the
reason. The Guru smiled at Puran and said, “Well son, take this idol of
Lord Siva. I shall initiate you into the Siva Mantra. Worship Lord Siva
with faith and devotion. He is considered as Bhole Nath and is easily
propitiable; He will bless you soon.”
The next six months saw Puran Chand immersed in Japa and worship of Lord
Siva. The idol of Lord Narayana was placed on a dusty shelf in the puja
room. After many months, Puran Chand once more went to his Guru and
complained that his worship of Siva had brought him no result. He begged
him to give him the Murti and Mantra of a Devata that would bless him.
The Guru smiled again; the time for enlightenment had come, yet he felt the
disciple would learn from experience. So he said, “Good son, in this Yuga,
Mother Kali is Pratyaksha Devata. Worship this image of Her and repeat the
Navarna Mantra and you will obtain Her Grace.” This time, Puran Chand had
no misgivings whatsoever; he had full faith.
Kali worship commenced; Siva joined company with Narayana on the shelf.
With devotion, Puran was waving incense before the image of Mother Kali
when the fumes rose up and reached the shelf where the other two idols were
kept. Puran was enraged. What right had Siva to inhale the incense intended
for Mother Kali? He had refused to be propitiated when he had tirelessly
worshipped Him; it was Mother Kali whom he now worshipped. In great anger
he took down the image of Siva in his hands and began to insert cotton wool
in His nose to stop Him from inhaling the incense. Before he could
accomplish his task, however, the idol disappeared and before him stood the
Lord, smiling in all His mercy and compassion. Speechless with wonder and
amazement, Puran prostrated himself before the Lord who told him to ask for
any boon as He was immensely pleased with his devotion.
Puran answered, “My Lord, I am much perplexed. You did not deign to bless
me when I devoutly worshipped You and repeated the Panchakshara Mantra for
six months. But You suddenly chose to reveal yourself to me when I had
discarded Your image and given up Your worship. What is this mystery, O
Lord?”
The Lord answered, “My child, there is no mystery to be explained; how
could I reveal Myself when you treated Me as a mere image, as a mere piece
of metal worshipped or thrown away according to your whim? Today you
treated My image as a living presence when you wanted to plug the nostrils
with cotton wool; thus you revealed that you recognised My living presence
in the idol and I could no longer withhold Myself from you.”
Speechless and enlightened, Puran bowed once more and was immersed in His
Love. He could ask for no greater boon, for in His love he
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 22:56:45 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Pranam Respected Ananda ji,
I'm very thankful for your kind and very scholarly reply, but I would still
choose to disagree with you and I would like to request you to reconsider
your statement and quotation from PurnaPrajna Bhashya (mAdhva bhAshya) of
the Brahma Sutras.
Though let me tell you that I'm not at all an authority in Bhagavan
Madhvacharya's Dvaita Darshna, and therefore I don't feel myself able to
declare something regarding him, as my prime focus had always been on
Bhagavan GagadGuru Shri Shankaracharya, but still I would try to interpret
the context and would try to give an answer as well, to your problem which
you have stated, as " How to explain these contradictory positions
is beyond my knowledge of MAdhva literature". However, I would still await a
comment from Shri Shrisha Rao Ji on my understanding, as well as from your
own self.
In the previous Sutra, which is,
anyAdhishThite pUrva-vadabhilApAt
If you would look in to this sutra and try to understand the context, you
would see that the context is in fact not about yajna etc. or meat-sacrifice
or any other thing similar to that. The question seems to be that if a
person enters in to the grains, sesame, oshadhi etc. in that case if those
things are eaten, than wouldn't it be a sin, by eating or even killing those
souls which have entered these grains.
As an answer to this, Bhagavan Madhva says that, which you have quoted in
your previous mail. The essence seems to be that "because eating those
grains is accepted in the Shastras, therefore it is not a sin". However, if
a person just cooks for his own self, he eats sin, that is very much
clarified in the 3rd chapter of Gita by Bhagavan Shri Krishna. And that sin
which is mentioned in Gita, seems to become clear with this statement of
Madhvacharya.
However, if we mingle Gita and Madhva's statement here, the outcome might be
something like this, "if a person eats these grains, without offering them
to the Gods (which would be done by a Vedic ritual), it is a sin, because he
is killing the souls and causing pain to them for his own sake". I think,
this is the context and this is the correct interpretation of it. Though, I
myself am a very orthodox follower, of Bhagavan Shankaracharya, but at this
point I would like to state that Bhagavan Madhva has understood the true
significance of the Vedas very well. This also clarifies the chapter in
Shukla Yajur Veda, which is also related to meat sacrifice and says that
killing these souls enable them for a higher birth. I think, according to
Bhagavan Madhva those ought to be the souls existing in the form of grains
etc. That is what I also think, it should be.
Please comment on this understanding of a teenager and enlighten me. Sorry,
for my poor English, I'm still learning its Grammar.
>>>>>>the commentary above leaves no doubt regarding his
position on Vedic sacrifices as far as his sUtra bhAShya is
concerned, a position which can be taken as authentic.
I think the context makes it explicit that it is not said about animal
sacrifice, but about grain-sacrifice or killing grains.
>>>>>>>>>How to explain these contradictory positions
is beyond my knowledge of MAdhva literature, but not necessarily
beyond the knowledge of some other members of the list, such as
Shrisha Rao.
I think, the interpretation makes it quite clear. Still I look forward to
any comment from your own self or from Shri Shrisha Rao.
Loving Regards,
Adoration to you,
Servant and follower of scholars like
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: Three guNas and the vedas
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:36:18 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Dear vivek ji wrote:
>>>>>>traiguNyavishhayA vedA nistraiguNyo bhavArjuna |
nirdvandvo nityasattvastho niryogakshema AtmavAn.h ||
(shrimad bhagavad gItA, Chapter 2, verse 45 )
Here, it is clearly indicated that the vedas are about
the three guNas. It also seems to indicate that the one
established in Atman ( AtmavAn ), should rise above the
three guNas.
Not only Vedas, even Upanishad and even Gita don't transcend the Gunas. The
knowledge gained from them is an objective knowledge, and therefore it is
not true. It is utterly mithyaa. Therefore, it is paroksha jnaana, and
therefore, it has been included very clearly included in mithyaa jnaana.
Only subjective knowledge, which is gained in the state of Nididhyaasana (or
samaadhi), is considered to be as true knowledge. This has been clarified in
the Vakya Bhashya of Kena Upanishad by Shankaracharya and it's commentary by
Ananda Giri. Therefore, even the Vedas state themselves, "there where Vedas
no more remain Vedas" or they give us ultimate freedom from their own rule
"Create free space; release the bound from his bonds. Like a newborn child,
freed from the womb, be free to move on every path" (Atharva Veda 6-121-4).
>>>>>But, later it states that one should always
be engaged in the sattvic state. For someone already
established in Atman is beyond sattva, is he/she not?
That state, described above is not for always, a person can not always be in
Samaadhi, therefore in the rest of time he should be in a sattvic state, and
not rajasic or taamasic. That is it, what is meant there.
Loving
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:13:49 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_016B_01C0BF08.626C9260"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
------=_NextPart_000_016B_01C0BF08.626C9260
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>>>>>I said that the part of vedas which are having only about
sacrifices ( i.e mantras etc) is useless ( in the sence ,that it doesnt
increase our knowledge about life,=20
I disagree with it because it is totally against my own experience. Rig-ved=
a contains hymns. It has mantra. It increases highly our knowledge about li=
fe, death and immortality.=20
O My God! It is a misfortune of India, that the last manuscript of Hastamal=
akas commentary on Rig-veda has vanished. I hope somebody rediscovers it.
>>>>>>>>>>>it is only=20
for those who think that, by chanting them they can make gods happy,=20
which deviates totally from ADVAITA VEDANTA thought) .
In this statement, you are ignoring a fundamental fact, which is stated ver=
y clearly in the Rig-veda itself, as a mantra, "the truth is one, but the s=
eers have called by different names, some call it indra, mitra, varuna, agn=
i, other call it yama and maatarishva.
Dear Ravi ji,
If you ever get time, then read Maharshi Yaska's Nirukta (one among the six=
vedangas), with the commentary of Durga Acharya, you should read it with t=
his commentary. You would find that Rig-veda-mantra-samhita contains the sa=
me thing, which is there in the Upanishads. You may not forget, that Brahma=
na's are just a commentary on the Vedas (even Sayana accepts it). Half of t=
he Brahmana is a ritualistic interpretation of the Vedas, and the rest (whi=
ch some call Upanishads), is nothing more than a spiritual interpretation o=
r (rather I would like to say, explanation) if the Vedas, i.e. of the Mantr=
as.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Aranyakas also contains nearly=20
same ( changes while shifting from Grihastasram to Vanaprasta)
Please don't forget, that Upanishads are just a part of an Aranyaka, and an=
aranyaka is a part of a Brahmana. And Brahmana is an explanation of the Ma=
ntra. Mantras are clearly called "brahma" in Rig-veda, and because these so=
rt of books are related to "brahma", i.e. mantra, therefore, they are calle=
d Brahmana.
>>>>>>>>>I havent said that WHOLE vedas are useless ,
I said only the last part of Vedas (i.e vedanta ) is the useful one.=20
It is very much useful to understand the Vedas, i.e. the Mantras. Which are=
plainly used in rituals, without trying to understand their meaning. Some =
ritualistic scholars even say, that these mantra's don't mean anything. Ala=
s, the true culture of India has been abandoned by the Indians, by such sta=
tements.
>>>>>>> i think their view point was from philosophical side . U can also s=
ee the Vedas
(here i mean the part containg "mantras" ,not the whole).=20
from religious view point .
I'm not the least seeing them from a religious view point. I have seen them=
from a philosophical and scientific viewpoint. And whatever I have stated =
here, is according to that.
>>>> the scholor 'from his view point' is correct .
If his view point is a philosophical point of view, I might still state, th=
at it is incorrect.
I can show you that most of the philosophy described in the Upanishads and =
by Bhagavan Shankaracharya, exists in the Rig-veda. And, hence has been tak=
en from there, as it is the oldest document of humankind and is the ultimat=
e truth, downed upon out Great Seers Rishis by the Supreme Lord himself, Ya=
jna, vishnu or purusha, in Rig-vedic terms.
And if you still don't believe me, look at my Veda related articles. In fut=
ure, I may also post some mantra's from Rig-veda-mantra-samhita, where you =
may be able to see, that even things like Bhakti, which seem to be absent f=
rom the Upanishads, are existing in the Vedas. However, Vedas contain the h=
ighest knowledge of self-realization and a system to gain that position, th=
is is a fact, a philosophical, metaphysical, psychological and scientific f=
act. I have seen it, and a day would come when the world would see it.
I just remember one Mantra (hymn) of Rig-veda for now, "some see the Vedas,=
but still don't see it, some hear them, but still don't hear them. There a=
re only a chosen few, to which it unfolds its true form".
Upanishads enable us to become one of these chosen few, therefore you may =
say that initially upanishads are more useful then the Vedas for us. If it'=
s that what you mean, I absolutely agree.
Loving Regards,
Siddhartha
------=_NextPart_000_016B_01C0BF08.626C9260
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> >>>>>>>I said that the p=
art of=20
vedas which are having only about<BR>sacrifices ( i.e mantras etc) is usele=
ss=20
( in the sence ,that it doesnt<BR> increase our knowledge about =
life,=20
<P>I disagree with it because it is totally against my own experience. Rig-=
veda=20
contains hymns. It has mantra. It increases highly our knowledge about life=
,=20
death and immortality. </P>
<P>O My God! It is a misfortune of India, that the last manuscript of=20
Hastamalakas commentary on Rig-veda has vanished. I hope somebody rediscove=
rs=20
it.</P>
<P>>>>>>>>>>>>it is only <BR>for those who=
=20
think that, by chanting them they can make gods happy, <BR>which devi=
ates=20
totally from ADVAITA VEDANTA thought) .</P>
<P>In this statement, you are ignoring a fundamental fact, which is stated =
very=20
clearly in the Rig-veda itself, as a mantra, "the truth is one, but the see=
rs=20
have called by different names, some call it indra, mitra, varuna, agni, ot=
her=20
call it yama and maatarishva.</P>
<P>Dear Ravi ji,</P>
<P>If you ever get time, then read Maharshi Yaska's Nirukta (one among the =
six=20
vedangas), with the commentary of Durga Acharya, you should read it with th=
is=20
commentary. You would find that Rig-veda-mantra-samhita contains the same t=
hing,=20
which is there in the Upanishads. You may not forget, that Brahmana's are j=
ust a=20
commentary on the Vedas (even Sayana accepts it). Half of the Brahmana is a=
=20
ritualistic interpretation of the Vedas, and the rest (which some call=20
Upanishads), is nothing more than a spiritual interpretation or (rather I w=
ould=20
like to say, explanation) if the Vedas, i.e. of the Mantras.</P>
<P>>>>>>>>>>>>>Aranyakas also contains=
=20
nearly <BR>same ( changes while shifting from Grihastasram to Vanaprasta)</=
P>
<P>Please don't forget, that Upanishads are just a part of an Aranyaka, and=
an=20
aranyaka is a part of a Brahmana. And Brahmana is an explanation of the Man=
tra.=20
Mantras are clearly called "brahma" in Rig-veda, and because these sort of =
books=20
are related to "brahma", i.e. mantra, therefore, they are called Brahmana.<=
/P>
<P>>>>>>>>>>I havent said that WHOLE vedas are=20
useless ,<BR>I said only the last part of Vedas (i.e vedanta ) is the usefu=
l=20
one. </P>
<P>It is very much useful to understand the Vedas, i.e. the Mantras. Which =
are=20
plainly used in rituals, without trying to understand their meaning. Some=20
ritualistic scholars even say, that these mantra's don't mean anything. Ala=
s,=20
the true culture of India has been abandoned by the Indians, by such=20
statements.</P>
<P>>>>>>>> i think their view point was from=20
philosophical side . U can also see the Vedas<BR>(here i mean the part cont=
aing=20
"mantras" ,not the whole). <BR>from religious view point .</P>
<P>I'm not the least seeing them from a religious view point. I have seen t=
hem=20
from a philosophical and scientific viewpoint. And whatever I have stated
h=
ere,=20
is according to that.</P>
<P>>>>> the scholor 'from his view point' is =
=20
correct .</P>
<P>If his view point is a philosophical point of view, I might still state,=
that=20
it is incorrect.</P>
<P>I can show you that most of the philosophy described in the Upanishads a=
nd by=20
Bhagavan Shankaracharya, exists in the Rig-veda. And, hence has been taken =
from=20
there, as it is the oldest document of humankind and is the ultimate truth,=
=20
downed upon out Great Seers Rishis by the Supreme Lord himself, Yajna, vish=
nu or=20
purusha, in Rig-vedic terms.</P>
<P>And if you still don't believe me, look at my Veda related articles. In=
=20
future, I may also post some mantra's from Rig-veda-mantra-samhita, where y=
ou=20
may be able to see, that even things like Bhakti, which seem to be absent f=
rom=20
the Upanishads, are existing in the Vedas. However, Vedas contain the highe=
st=20
knowledge of self-realization and a system to gain that position, this is a=
=20
fact, a philosophical, metaphysical, psychological and scientific fact. I h=
ave=20
seen it, and a day would come when the world would see it.</P>
<P>I just remember one Mantra (hymn) of Rig-veda for now, "some see the Ved=
as,=20
but still don't see it, some hear them, but still don't hear them. There ar=
e=20
only a chosen few, to which it unfolds its true form".</P>
<P>Upanishads enable us to become one<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbs=
p;=20
</SPAN>of these chosen few, therefore you may say that initially upanishads=
are=20
more useful then the Vedas for us. If it's that what you mean, I absolutely=
=20
agree.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Loving Regards,</P>
<P
>From "Malolan Cadambi" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Subject: 32 Giitas
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:59:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0017_01C0BECB.BFC39B80"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Malolan Cadambi" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C0BECB.BFC39B80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
sri:
Dear Bhaktas,
I was listening to the upanyaasam of Kanchi Paramacharyal Sri Sri Jayendra =
Saraswathi Swamigal.=20
Swami was mentioning about the 32 different giitas. Could anyone of you lis=
t of the specifics on this great upanyaasam?
Regards,
Ramanuja Daasan
Malolan
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C0BECB.BFC39B80
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" http-equiv=3DContent-Type=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>sri:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear Bhaktas,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I was listening to the upanyaasam of Kanch=
i=20
Paramacharyal Sri Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Swami was mentioning about the 32 differen=
t giitas.=20
Could anyone of you list of the specifics on this great upanyaasam?</FONT><=
/DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Ramanuja Daasan</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial
>From Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 19:55:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:13:49 +0530, Siddhartha Krishna
<siddharthakrishna at V...> wrote:
>
>If you ever get time, then read Maharshi Yaska's Nirukta (one among the
six vedangas), with the commentary of Durga Acharya, you should read it
with this commentary. You would find that Rig-veda-mantra-samhita contains
the same thing, which is there in the Upanishads. You may not forget, that
Brahmana's are just a commentary on the Vedas (even Sayana accepts it).
Half of the Brahmana is a ritualistic interpretation of the Vedas, and the
rest (which some call Upanishads), is nothing more than a spiritual
interpretation or (rather I would like to say, explanation) if the Vedas,
i.e. of the Mantras.
>
Siddharth,
First of all, let me thoroughly congratulate you on your erudition of our
Shastras. Rarely will one find one like you - so young and yet so committed
to the ideals of the Veda.
I always had this nagging doubt about the word Sruti. As we understand it,
and as Acharyas have explained it, the entire Veda (Samhita to the
Upanishads) is Sruti. Sruti means that which is heard (passed on from the
Rishi (seer) onwards). I used to think that the entire Veda (all four
components of it) was a revelation. As you have put it, and it sounds
logical as well, the Veda, as it is available to us today, has had
additions made to it in the form of Brahamans, Aranyakas and Upanishads.
These may very well be the teachings of the original Rishi but they are
some sort of an appendix to the mantras of the Samhitas, are they not? In
that case, only the mantras were seen by the Rishi.
However, reading the Yoga Vasishtha recently and coming acoross references
to Sage Veda Vyasa (who is yet to come) again fires my confusion. Perhaps,
Sage Vasishtha delivered his sermon to Shri Ram with knowledge of past,
present and
>From kartik at K...
Subject: Re: 32 Giitas
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:44:46 GMT
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: kartik at K...
OM
GURUR BRAHMA GURUR VISNU GURUR DEVO MAHESHVARAH
GURUH SAKSHAT PARAM BRAHM TASMAI SRI GURVE NAMAH
OM NAMAH SIVAYA
OM NAMAH SIVANANDAYA
Blessed Self,
It is a very good question. I am always astounded by this
also. I saw a book by Satgurudev Sri SWAMI SIVANANDAJI
Maharaj, titled Sarv Gita Sar. I do not have any copies of
this book. Do not know if it has the 32 Gitas.
This book can be obtained from the Divine Life Society
E-Bookstore at:
http://www.SivanandaDlshq.org/books.htm#bookstore
Breif description of the book:
ES135 Sarva Gita Sara
Swami Sivananda
A celestial key, in the words of the author
himself, to gain entry into the domain of Divine Life and
Splendour. These Gitas containing living messages from
illumined seers present the loftiest flights of the grand
Advaita-vada. Undoubtedly a precious text-book and constant
companion for every seeker.
Pranam
OM
> sri:
>
> Dear Bhaktas,
>
> I was listening to the upanyaasam of Kanchi Paramacharyal
Sri Sri
> Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal.
>
> Swami was mentioning about the 32 different giitas. Could
anyone of you
> list of the specifics on this great upanyaasam?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ramanuja Daasan
>
> Malolan
>
>
---------------------------------------------
Get FREE E-Mail at Y...
http://www.valuemail.net
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Shankara's philosophy for the world!
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:50:14 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006F_01C0BF58.E88484C0"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C0BF58.E88484C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Shankara's philosophy for the World!
Inspirations from the Vedas
Yesterday I and some of my friends had a very nice discussion, while we wer=
e reading and trying to understand Brahma-sutra's commentary by Bhagavan Sh=
ri Shankaracharya. We were not trying to understand it verbally, we have ma=
ny times understood it verbally (some among us have even taught it to other=
s many times), but we wanted the truth to flow out from it, the universal t=
ruth, not the verbal meaning, we seem sometimes full with that, sometimes i=
t becomes too much for us, after having been reading/studying/teaching thes=
e things for the last many years. We would like to realize them now, we wou=
ld like to penetrate deep in them.
We shouldn't forget that these words are just indications, we should try to=
see towards that which they indicate, but most of the scholars loose the p=
oint and keep on seeing towards the indication mark and feel very upset whe=
n they don't find the city on the signboard ;-)
Though it may sound a paradox, these words are trying in vain to describe t=
hat which is above the ability to be described. However, the truth is never=
described in fact, but the words ultimately lead us to its realization, bu=
t indeed only if we are not perplexed by them and we don't keep a firm hold=
on them and only if we understand their indication and then look towards t=
hat direction, placing our backs towards the words. That is essential, we h=
ave to look in to the opposite direction of the indication, if we want the =
indication to do its word. Isn't it?
However, I would like to share some of my thoughts/inspiration with all of =
you, and let many be inspired by these supreme truths.
Some say God in the sky, some say God is in his supreme abode somewhere abo=
ve this world, in a realm I don't know where. Vedas and Vedanta teach us th=
at He is within us, more than that our own Self. Aitareya Upanishad makes i=
t very clear, "after creating this person, He entered it". If this is under=
stood literally, than what is the soul different from God.
When we say God is existing within us in our heart, do we mean that two sou=
ls are existing, the first being the soul or spirit of God and the second o=
ur soul? I feel, this is a naive statement. There is only one entity in our=
heart and everywhere else, that is God and that is what we are, I, you and=
the rest around us, every single thing.
The Son of God places it so nicely in His great words which are treasures f=
or every person seeking a transcendental truth in his life. He says in the =
Gospel of Thomas (1:3),
"Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is=
in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to yo=
u, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom =
is within you and it is outside you."
The "parama pada (the supreme abode) of Vishnu" as the Upanishads and Rig-=
veda term it, is indeed this what Jesus calls "the kingdom of heaven".=20
How nicely does Rig-veda state it, "That Supreme Abode of Vishnu is always =
visible to those who have realized it, like the eyes see all this in the da=
y-light".=20
Didn't Jesus see it like we do see every thing before us? Isn't he in that =
state of realization, which is described in the Vedas?
What does Vishnu mean? The word has derived from the root "vish", which mea=
ns to enter, thus giving the mean, "he who has entered every thing". His su=
preme abode is our Heart, called "dahara aakasha" in the Upanishads or "haa=
rda dyu" the heaven existing in the heart. Though He is everywhere, when He=
is realized, He would always be realized within your own self, therefore, =
the heart has been said as to be His abode. This has been many times clarif=
ied by Bhagavan Shankaracharya in his commentary on Brahma-sutras and by Va=
chaspati Mishra in his Bhamati, one of the foremost sub-commentaries on Sha=
nkara's commentary.
In the same way, the "svarga" described in the Vedas, is in fact this king=
dom of heaven, it also has derived from the word "swa" which means "the sel=
f".
The word "svarga" has been very clearly used in the end Kena Upanishad in t=
he meaning of that state of Realization. Why don't we apply the same meanin=
g to the rest context, wherever that word has been used in the Vedas? Why d=
o we apply other stupid and speculative aspects, even in this era of scient=
ific advancement?
However, later it has been introduced by the Purana's in a very different w=
ay, having Apsara's etc. According to my thought this must be an influence =
of Islam. Islam seems to talk about a heaven in that way. I don't know, if =
that is really what even Mohammad himself meant, or is it just an exoteric =
teaching for the mass, and he might have kept the esoteric teachings for hi=
s own self and his nearest disciples, as Moses did with the commandments of=
God.
However it may be, it doesn't concern me, what I think is that we should re=
alize the truth and see it with our own eyes, not these outer eyes, but an =
eye transcending this mortal existence, the third eye of Shiva, which destr=
oys this whole world, isn't it what Upanishads and Gita and all these scrip=
tures had been doing for the last many many thousand years, destroying this=
world filled with grieve and sorrow and problems?
We shouldn't believe something merely because it is written here and there.=
God has given us an intellect to ponder and we should use it, not the mind=
, but the intellect. Deep contemplation and meditation on these truths reve=
al them to us, therefore every religion in this world teaches or practices =
meditation, isn't it?
However, the word Shiva literally means "Supreme Bliss" and Shankara means,=
that which creates Supreme Piece, is it not this knowledge which is descri=
bed in the Vedas?
When a person obtains that knowledge, he transcends the hatred, which is th=
ere in the state of ignorance towards generally hated things. And to show t=
his fact, Lord Shiva has been shown possessing all those things, which a ge=
neral person would hate to have. He keeps them with him, this shows that he=
has transcended hatred and loves even the most hated thing. If it is this =
what we can learn from Lord Shiva, then I think it is useful for us to be h=
is devotee, otherwise.........???
What does the Yajur Veda say? It says, "He who sees all and everything in h=
is own self, and sees his own self in all, he never hates anything".=20
Isn't it this, which is and has to be the essence of all religions and of t=
he philosophy of Shankaracharya. Shankaracharya and his grand-master Gaudap=
adacharya states very clearly that they don't have any problem with any oth=
er philosophy and can accept all the views, but it is those people, who hav=
e problems with our philosophy. And therefore, Shankaracharya states it so =
nicely in his commentary on Prashna Upanishads, "the cause of debate should=
be thrown towards them who are debating, a Vedavit (who knows the Vedas) s=
hould protect his mind from them and should always be happy".
Isn't it what Buddha also said many times? And I think every self-enlighten=
ed soul would say the same.
Debating/arguing leads nowhere, isn't it this what Shankaracharya wants to =
say? However, if it is done to exchange views and thoughts, like many here =
inside are doing, it may help our mind, intellect or the way of thinking in=
becoming broad, broad like the Supreme Truth called Brahman in the Upanish=
ads. But if it is done with a feeling of superiority complex, it becomes to=
tally useless, isn't it?
Haven't you ever looked at a lamb? How happy it is, how cheerful and in a s=
tate of bliss it remains. It doesn't discuss, it doesn't read, it doesn't l=
earn, it is just happy, simply just happy. There is no cause of its happine=
ss, in fact true happiness and eternal happiness has no cause, every
happin=
ess having a cause would and should end with its cause. Why don't learn som=
ething from that lamb? Like Adi Guru Dattatreya accepted 24 masters, let us=
also do the same. Let the loving small lamb be our best master.
In fact God has placed so many loving and harsh teachers in this world, tha=
t there is no need to study any book. From whom did the first author learn =
these Universal Truths? But indeed because we constantly tend to ignore or =
are disable to understand their massage, we need books, which described tho=
se very same truths, which are taught by these mostly unnoticed teachers, l=
ike a loving small lamb, and endless good or bad circumstances forthcoming =
in our daily life, and endless other things. Thus great saints tell us, "th=
is world is filled with knowledge, one just needs to open his doors and let=
the knowledge flow in him". But, alas, we are like containers, really like=
air-tight containers, we want to be like that, and thus we loose the oppor=
tunity to understand the Supreme Truth and simply pass over it. Alas! It is=
so sad! :-(
Loving Regards and I apologies if I hurt anybodies feelings, but I just wan=
ted to place the facts straightforward,
Siddhartha Krishna
------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C0BF58.E88484C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Shankara's=
=20
philosophy for the World!</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Inspiration=
s from=20
the Vedas</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Yesterday I=
and=20
some of my friends had a very nice discussion, while we were reading and tr=
ying=20
to understand Brahma-sutra's commentary by Bhagavan Shri Shankaracharya. We=
were=20
not trying to understand it verbally, we have many times understood it verb=
ally=20
(some among us have even taught it to others many times), but we wanted the=
=20
truth to flow out from it, the universal truth, not the verbal meaning, we =
seem=20
sometimes full with that, sometimes it becomes too much for us, after havin=
g=20
been reading/studying/teaching these things for the last many years. We wou=
ld=20
like to realize them now, we would like to penetrate deep in them.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">We shouldn'=
t=20
forget that these words are just indications, we should try to see towards =
that=20
which they indicate, but most of the scholars loose the point and keep on s=
eeing=20
towards the indication mark and feel very upset when they don't find the ci=
ty on=20
the signboard ;-)</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Though it m=
ay=20
sound a paradox, these words are trying in vain to describe that which is a=
bove=20
the ability to be described. However, the truth is never described in fact,=
but=20
the words ultimately lead us to its realization, but indeed only if we are =
not=20
perplexed by them and we don't keep a firm hold on them and only if we=20
understand their indication and then look towards that direction, placing o=
ur=20
backs towards the words. That is essential, we have to look in to the oppos=
ite=20
direction of the indication, if we want the indication to do its word. Isn'=
t=20
it?</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">However, I =
would=20
like to share some of my thoughts/inspiration with all of you, and let many=
be=20
inspired by these supreme truths.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Some say Go=
d in=20
the sky, some say God is in his supreme abode somewhere above this world, i=
n a=20
realm I don't know where. Vedas and Vedanta teach us that He is within us, =
more=20
than that our own Self. Aitareya Upanishad makes it very clear, "after crea=
ting=20
this person, He entered it". If this is understood literally, than what is =
the=20
soul different from God.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">When we say=
God is=20
existing within us in our heart, do we mean that two souls are existing, th=
e=20
first being the soul or spirit of God and the second our soul? I feel, this=
is a=20
naive statement. There is only one entity in our heart and everywhere else,=
that=20
is God and that is what we are, I, you and the rest around us, every single=
=20
thing.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">The Son of =
God=20
places it so nicely in His great words which are treasures for every person=
=20
seeking a transcendental truth in his life. He says in the Gospel of Thomas=
=20
(1:3),</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"> "Jesu=
s said,=20
"If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' =
then=20
the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the se=
a,'=20
then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is=
=20
outside you."</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"> The "=
parama=20
pada (the supreme abode) of Vishnu" as the Upanishads and Rig-veda term it,=
is=20
indeed this what Jesus calls "the kingdom of heaven". </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">How nicely =
does=20
Rig-veda state it, "That Supreme Abode of Vishnu is always visible to those=
who=20
have realized it, like the eyes see all this in the day-light". </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Didn't Jesu=
s see=20
it like we do see every thing before us? Isn't he in that state of realizat=
ion,=20
which is described in the Vedas?</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">What does V=
ishnu=20
mean? The word has derived from the root "vish", which means to enter, thus=
=20
giving the mean, "he who has entered every thing". His supreme abode is our=
=20
Heart, called "dahara aakasha" in the Upanishads or "haarda dyu" the heaven=
=20
existing in the heart. Though He is everywhere, when He is realized, He wou=
ld=20
always be realized within your own self, therefore, the heart has been said=
as=20
to be His abode. This has been many times clarified by Bhagavan Shankaracha=
rya=20
in his commentary on Brahma-sutras and by Vachaspati Mishra in his Bhamati,=
one=20
of the foremost sub-commentaries on Shankara's commentary.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"> In th=
e same=20
way, the "svarga" described in the Vedas, is in fact this kingdom of heaven=
, it=20
also has derived from the word "swa" which means "the self".</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">The word "s=
varga"=20
has been very clearly used in the end Kena Upanishad in the meaning of that=
=20
state of Realization. Why don't we apply the same meaning to the rest conte=
xt,=20
wherever that word has been used in the Vedas? Why do we apply other stupid=
and=20
speculative aspects, even in this era of scientific advancement?</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">However, la=
ter it=20
has been introduced by the Purana's in a very different way, having Apsara'=
s=20
etc. According to my thought this must be an influence of Islam. Islam seem=
s to=20
talk about a heaven in that way. I don't know, if that is really what even=
=20
Mohammad himself meant, or is it just an exoteric teaching for the mass, an=
d he=20
might have kept the esoteric teachings for his own self and his nearest=20
disciples, as Moses did with the commandments of God.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">However it =
may be,=20
it doesn't concern me, what I think is that we should realize the truth and=
see=20
it with our own eyes, not these outer eyes, but an eye transcending this mo=
rtal=20
existence, the third eye of Shiva, which destroys this whole world, isn't i=
t=20
what Upanishads and Gita and all these scriptures had been doing for the la=
st=20
many many thousand years, destroying this world filled with grieve and sorr=
ow=20
and problems?</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">We shouldn'=
t=20
believe something merely because it is written here and there. God has give=
n us=20
an intellect to ponder and we should use it, not the mind, but the intellec=
t.=20
Deep contemplation and meditation on these truths reveal them to us, theref=
ore=20
every religion in this world teaches or practices meditation, isn't it?</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">However, th=
e word=20
Shiva literally means "Supreme Bliss" and Shankara means, that which create=
s=20
Supreme Piece, is it not this knowledge which is described in the Vedas?</P=
>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">When a pers=
on=20
obtains that knowledge, he transcends the hatred, which is there in the sta=
te of=20
ignorance towards generally hated things. And to show this fact, Lord Shiva=
has=20
been shown possessing all those things, which a general person would hate t=
o=20
have. He keeps them with him, this shows that he has
transcended hatred and=
=20
loves even the most hated thing. If it is this what we can learn from Lord=
=20
Shiva, then I think it is useful for us to be his devotee,=20
otherwise.........???</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">What does t=
he=20
Yajur Veda say? It says, "He who sees all and everything in his own self, a=
nd=20
sees his own self in all, he never hates anything". </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Isn't it th=
is,=20
which is and has to be the essence of all religions and of the philosophy o=
f=20
Shankaracharya. Shankaracharya and his grand-master Gaudapadacharya states =
very=20
clearly that they don't have any problem with any other philosophy and can=
=20
accept all the views, but it is those people, who have problems with our=20
philosophy. And therefore, Shankaracharya states it so nicely in his commen=
tary=20
on Prashna Upanishads, "the cause of debate should be thrown towards them w=
ho=20
are debating, a Vedavit (who knows the Vedas) should protect his mind from =
them=20
and should always be happy".</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Isn't it wh=
at=20
Buddha also said many times? And I think every self-enlightened soul would =
say=20
the same.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Debating/ar=
guing=20
leads nowhere, isn't it this what Shankaracharya wants to say? However, if =
it is=20
done to exchange views and thoughts, like many here inside are doing, it ma=
y=20
help our mind, intellect or the way of thinking in becoming broad, broad li=
ke=20
the Supreme Truth called Brahman in the Upanishads. But if it is done with =
a=20
feeling of superiority complex, it becomes totally useless, isn't it?</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Haven't you=
ever=20
looked at a lamb? How happy it is, how cheerful and in a state of bliss it=
=20
remains. It doesn't discuss, it doesn't read, it doesn't learn, it is just=
=20
happy, simply just happy. There is no cause of its happiness, in fact true=
=20
happiness and eternal happiness has no cause, every happiness having a caus=
e=20
would and should end with its cause. Why don't learn something from that la=
mb?=20
Like Adi Guru Dattatreya accepted 24 masters, let us also do the same. Let =
the=20
loving small lamb be our best master.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">In fact God=
has=20
placed so many loving and harsh teachers in this world, that there is no ne=
ed to=20
study any book. From whom did the first author learn these Universal Truths=
? But=20
indeed because we constantly tend to ignore or are disable to understand th=
eir=20
massage, we need books, which described those very same truths, which are t=
aught=20
by these mostly unnoticed teachers, like a loving small lamb, and endless g=
ood=20
or bad circumstances forthcoming in our daily life, and endless other thing=
s.=20
Thus great saints tell us, "this world is filled with knowledge, one just n=
eeds=20
to open his doors and let the knowledge flow in him". But, alas, we are lik=
e=20
containers, really like air-tight containers, we want to be like that, and =
thus=20
we loose the opportunity to understand the Supreme Truth and simply pass ov=
er=20
it. Alas! It is so sad! :-(</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Loving Rega=
rds and=20
I apologies if I hurt anybodies feelings, but I just wanted to place the fa=
cts=20
straightforward,</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:
>From Ravindranath chowdary Jampani <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1477511575-986634732=:73737"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ravindranath chowdary Jampani <owner-advaita-l at L...>
--0-1477511575-986634732=:73737
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> if his view point is a philosophical point of view,
> I might still state, that it is incorrect.
> I can show you that most of the philosophy described
> in the Upanishads and by Bhagavan Shankaracharya,
> exists in the Rig-veda.
dear sir,
u have said that u can show that what is in Upanishads is
in Rg-veda. Before telling my opinion i want to point u that,
the commentaries of samkaracharya , Ramanujacharya & madavacharya
on BhagavadGita varies to a great extent, as we know that Gita
is written around 800BC & these three famous teachers belong to
600 Ad. By telling what i mean is,the slokas in the olden writings
can be interpreted in what ever way we want.
By the above i dont want to say that ur statement "Rg-veda is
superset of Upanishads " is wrong ,but i want to point out that,
one cant get correct meaning of a "sloka" or Mantra.One can try to interpret them in the way he wants.
> And, hence has been taken
> from there, as it is the oldest document of
> humankind and is the ultimate truth, downed upon out
> Great Seers Rishis by the Supreme Lord himself,
> Yajna, vishnu or purusha, in Rig-vedic terms.
In my view ADVAITA means non-dual or "no two forms" . U have
said that Rig-veda contains "ultimate truth, downed upon out
Great Seers Rishis by the Supreme Lord himself", here i dont
understand what do u mean by SUPREME LORD .
If u mean someone who had overcome the maya (as described by sankara),
he wont have any relations with the world in maya(i.e our world).
So there is no question of the great rishis writing down his views
in rg-veda , who also hadnt overcame the maya.
Here i want to quote the words of Radhakrishnan ( the same scholar whom ,i
have mentioned before), which i think it has a real great meaning .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" How are we to account for the world? The empherical variety is there
bound in space, time and cause. If the self is the one , the universal ,
the immutable, we find in the world
a mass of particulars with opposed characters , we can only
call it non-self , the object of a subject . In no caseis it
real. The pricipal catagories of the wold of experience,
time, space and cause are self-contradictory . They are
relative terms depending on their constituents . they have no
real existence . Yet they are not non-existent . The
world is there , and we work in it and through it. We do not
and cannot know the why of this world It is this fact
of its inexplicable existence that is signified by the word
MAYA . to ask what isthe relation between the asolute self and
the empirical flux, to ask why and how it happens,
that there are two , is to assume that everything has a why and a how. To
say that the infinite becomes the finite or
manifests itelf as finite is on this view utter nonsence.
The limited cannot express or manifest the ulimited . The
moment the unlimited manifests itself in the limitd, it
itself becomes limited . To say that the absolute degenerates
or lapses into the empirical is to contradict its absoluteness.
No lapsecan come to a perfect being. No darknes can dwell in perfect
light. We cannot admit that the supreme ,which
is changeless, becomes limited by changing . To change
is to desire or to feel a want , and it shows lack of perfection.
The absolute can never become an ojbect of knowledge,for
what is know isfinite and relative . our limited mind cannot
go beyond the bound of time, space and cause , nor can we
explanin these , since every attempt to explain them , assumes
them. Through thought , which is itself a part of te relative
world , we cannot know the absolute self. Our relative
experience is a waking dream . Science and logic are parts
of it and products of it too. This failure of metaphysics is neither
to be wept over not to be laughtd over , neither to be praised not blamed, but Understood.
With a touching humility born of intellectual strength , a sankara , a kent etc
declares that our thought deals with the relative , and has nothing to do with
the absolute."
[** This is what the author thinks about the non-dualism (or advaita) **]
"Thought the absolute being is not known in the logical
way , it is yet realised by all who strain to know hte truth, as
the reality in wich we live , move and have our being . Only
through it can anything else be known. It is the eternal witness of
all knowledge. The non-dualist contends that his theory
is based on the logic of facts. The self is the inmost
and deepest reality , felt by all , since it is the self of all things
known and unknown too, and there is no knower to know
it except itself . It is the true and the eternal , and thereis
nought beside it. As for the empirical ramifications which
also exist , the non-dualist says , well , they are there,
and there is an end of it . We do not know and cannot know
why. It is all a contradiction and yet it is actual.
This is the Advaita taken up by Gaudapada and sanakara"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The other meaning which i can infer from ur words is, u are assuming a god who is
the creator of others ( which might break ADVAITA thought) .
This is what i mean by religion point of view .Any way if u mean this,
i will totally agree with ur arguments about vedas and upanishads&
i am sorry if my views as an indian ( as u have mentioned that it has
hurt u that even indians are unable to understand the real meaning )
have hurt you .Even if we think
that ur assumption is perfectly true ,the problem of different interpretations
will come ( which i have mentioned in the beginning of this mail , as
vedas belong to 1000Bc).
> In future, I may also post some
> mantra's from Rig-veda-mantra-samhita, where you may
> be able to see, that even things like Bhakti, which
> seem to be absent from the Upanishads, are existing
> in the Vedas.
Here also u have mentioned the word "Bhakti" in vedas. but Bhakti towards whom??.
u might have meant 'God'( if u have meant towards the "SELF", does bhakthi
towards self means following truth??,or doing meditation ??) . U said "Bhakti ,which
seem to be absent from the Upanishads, are existing
in the Vedas" , u seem to support my arguments that Upanishads are
superior to Vedas( the part which contains "mantras") IN MY VIEW POINT.
Note : the dates which i have mentioned above , might not be totally
correct .
urs
-ravi
ps :as i am having my exams , i want to take leave from this
discussion list for some days, . Any one who find that some of my
arguments are incorrect, can correct me , but i wont be able to reply them. Thanks .
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
--0-1477511575-986634732=:73737
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P>> if his view point is a philosophical point of view,<BR>> I might still state, that it is incorrect. <BR>> I can show you that most of the philosophy described<BR>> in the Upanishads and by Bhagavan Shankaracharya,<BR>> exists in the Rig-veda.
<P>dear sir,<BR>u have said that u can show that what is in Upanishads is<BR>in Rg-veda. Before telling my opinion i want to point u that,<BR>the commentaries of samkaracharya , Ramanujacharya & madavacharya<BR>on BhagavadGita varies to a great extent, as we know that Gita<BR>is written around 800BC & these three famous teachers belong to<BR>600 Ad. By telling what i mean is,the slokas in the olden writings<BR>can be interpreted in what ever way we want.<BR>By the above i dont want to say that ur statement "Rg-veda is <BR>superset of Upanishads " is wrong ,but i want to point out that,<BR>one cant get correct meaning of a "sloka" or Mantra.One can try to interpret them in the way he wants.
<P>> And, hence has been taken<BR>> from there, as it is the oldest document of<BR>> humankind and is the ultimate truth, downed upon out<BR>> Great Seers Rishis by the Supreme Lord himself,<BR>> Yajna, vishnu or purusha, in Rig-vedic terms.
<P>In my view ADVAITA means non-dual or "no two forms" . U have<BR>said that Rig-veda contains "ultimate truth, downed upon out<BR>Great Seers Rishis by the
Supreme Lord himself", here i dont<BR>understand what do u mean by SUPREME LORD .
<P>If u mean someone who had overcome the maya (as described by sankara),<BR>he wont have any relations with the world in maya(i.e our world).<BR>So there is no question of the great rishis writing down his views<BR>in rg-veda , who also hadnt overcame the maya.
<P>Here i want to quote the words of Radhakrishnan ( the same scholar whom ,i<BR>have mentioned before), which i think it has a real great meaning .
<P>------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>" How are we to account for the world? The empherical variety is there <BR>bound in space, time and cause. If the self is the one , the universal ,<BR>the immutable, we find in the world<BR>a mass of particulars with opposed characters , we can only <BR>call it non-self , the object of a subject . In no caseis it<BR>real. The pricipal catagories of the wold of experience, <BR>time, space and cause are self-contradictory . They are<BR>relative terms depending on their constituents . they have no<BR>real existence . Yet they are not non-existent . The<BR>world is there , and we work in it and through it. We do not<BR>and cannot know the why of this world It is this fact <BR>of its inexplicable existence that is signified by the word<BR>MAYA . to ask what isthe relation between the asolute self and <BR>the empirical flux, to ask why and how it happens,<BR>that there are two , is to assume that !
everything has a why and a how. To<BR>say that the infinite becomes the finite or<BR>manifests itelf as finite is on this view utter nonsence.<BR>The limited cannot express or manifest the ulimited . The<BR>moment the unlimited manifests itself in the limitd, it<BR>itself becomes limited . To say that the absolute degenerates <BR>or lapses into the empirical is to contradict its absoluteness.<BR>No lapsecan come to a perfect being. No darknes can dwell in perfect <BR>light. We cannot admit that the supreme ,which<BR>is changeless, becomes limited by changing . To change<BR>is to desire or to feel a want , and it shows lack of perfection.<BR>The absolute can never become an ojbect of knowledge,for<BR>what is know isfinite and relative . our limited mind cannot <BR>go beyond the bound of time, space and cause , nor can we<BR>explanin these , since every attempt to explain them , assumes<BR>them. Through thought , which is itself a part of te relative <BR>world , we cannot kno!
w the absolute self. Our relative<BR>experience is a waking dream . Sc
ience and logic are parts<BR>of it and products of it too. This failure of metaphysics is neither<BR>to be wept over not to be laughtd over , neither to be praised not blamed, but Understood.<BR>With a touching humility born of intellectual strength , a sankara , a kent etc<BR>declares that our thought deals with the relative , and has nothing to do with <BR>the absolute."
<P>[** This is what the author thinks about the non-dualism (or advaita) **]
<P> "Thought the absolute being is not known in the logical<BR>way , it is yet realised by all who strain to know hte truth, as <BR>the reality in wich we live , move and have our being . Only<BR>through it can anything else be known. It is the eternal witness of <BR>all knowledge. The non-dualist contends that his theory <BR>is based on the logic of facts. The self is the inmost<BR>and deepest reality , felt by all , since it is the self of all things<BR>known and unknown too, and there is no knower to know<BR>it except itself . It is the true and the eternal , and thereis<BR>nought beside it. As for the empirical ramifications which<BR>also exist , the non-dualist says , well , they are there, <BR>and there is an end of it . We do not know and cannot know<BR>why. It is all a contradiction and yet it is actual.<BR>This is the Advaita taken up by Gaudapada and sanakara"<BR>-------------------------------------------------------------------
<P>
<P>The other meaning which i can infer from ur words is, u are assuming a god who is<BR>the creator of others ( which might break ADVAITA thought) . <BR>This is what i mean by religion point of view .Any way if u mean this, <BR>i will totally agree with ur arguments about vedas and upanishads& <BR>i am sorry if my views as an indian ( as u have mentioned that it has<BR>hurt u that even indians are unable to understand the real meaning ) <BR>have hurt you .Even if we think<BR>that ur assumption is perfectly true ,the problem of different interpretations<BR>will come ( which i have mentioned in the beginning of this mail , as <BR>vedas belong to 1000Bc).
<P><BR>> In future, I may also post some<BR>> mantra's from Rig-veda-mantra-samhita, where you may<BR>> be able to see, that even things like Bhakti, which<BR>> seem to be absent from the Upanishads, are existing<BR>> in the Vedas.
<P>Here also u have mentioned the word "Bhakti" in vedas. but Bhakti towards whom??.<BR>u might have meant 'God'( if u have meant towards the "SELF", does bhakthi <BR>towards self means following truth??,or doing meditation ??) . U said "Bhakti ,which<BR>seem to be absent from the Upanishads, are existing<BR>in the Vedas" , u seem to support my arguments that Upanishads are<BR>superior to Vedas( the part which contains "mantras") IN MY VIEW POINT.
<P>
<P>Note : the dates which i have mentioned above , might not be totally<BR>correct .
<P>urs<BR>-ravi<BR>ps :as i am having my exams , i want to take leave from this <BR>discussion list for some days, . Any one who find that some of my <BR>arguments are incorrect, can correct me , but i wont be able to reply them. Thanks .<BR></P><p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
<a href="http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=mailiyfoot">Yahoo! Mail Personal Address</a> -
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo!
>From Shrisha Rao <shrao at n...>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:32:57 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Shrisha Rao <shrao at n...>
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Siddhartha Krishna wrote:
> I would like to request you to reconsider
> your statement and quotation from PurnaPrajna Bhashya (mAdhva bhAshya) of
> the Brahma Sutras.
The quotation by AH was accurate, of course, but your point that the issue
in that context is grains rather than animals is a well-taken one. AH's
error is excusable as it is understood that list postings are (largely)
exchanges of ideas and no one expects them to be polished and
authoritative. However, the same mistake is made in print by Jan Houben,
cf. `To Kill or Not to Kill the Sacrificial Animal', in `Violence Denied',
Brill 1999, pp. 156 et seq -- Houben also mistakenly reads Madhva in this
context as sanctioning animal sacrifice, an error that is less worth
forgiving since it comes in a scholarly essay.
To see the context of Madhva's comm. in this instance, and other
comparative views in others, the book `Brahma Sutras and Their Principal
Commentaries' (3 vols.) by B.N.K. Sharma (available from www.amazon.com,
or for less money from South Asia Books) is recommended.
> you have stated, as " How to explain these contradictory positions
> is beyond my knowledge of MAdhva literature".
Contradictory positions, or at least the appearance of them, are hardly
rare. For instance, we note that the very premise of the Bhagavad Gita
was to move Arjuna to perform his violent duty; yet that very text praises
ahiMsA (X-5, XIII-8) and states that ahiMsA is part of the "deific
wealth" (XVI-2/3) and further that Arjuna was born to this "deific wealth"
(XVI-5). To resolve the problem one would have to distinguish between the
contemptible violence of a murderous thug who acts out of depravity and
indifference, and the honorable violence of a disciplined soldier who acts
out of duty and sacrifice, and say that it is only the former that is
condemned. It is not difficult to see how a similar argument could also
be made elsewhere.
Coming to something else that was discussed last year, I have since
learned that the verse `alpAkSharamasandigdhaM sAravad.h vishvatomukham.h'
is cited by Vachaspati Misra in his tAtparyaTIkA on Gautama's nyAya text.
I am not sure if this is the same person as the author of the Bhamati
subcommentary. I am also informed by Mm. Dr. Sharma that Sudarshana Suri,
a follower of Ramanuja, quotes the complete passage starting with
`nArAyaNAd.h vinishhpannaM j~nAnaM kR^itayuge sthitam.h' that is cited by
Madhva in his BSBh.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:50:27 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Respected Shri Shrisha Rao Ji,
bhavate namo namaH,
I prostrate onto you for clarifying my doubt regarding the context. I
wholeheartedly thank you very very much. I hope I would be able to learn
more from you.
Thank you very much for the information regarding the books.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Coming to something else that was discussed last year, I have
since
learned that the verse `alpAkSharamasandigdhaM sAravad.h vishvatomukham.h'
is cited by Vachaspati Misra in his tAtparyaTIkA on Gautama's nyAya text.
I am not sure if this is the same person as the author of the Bhamati
subcommentary. I am also informed by Mm. Dr. Sharma that Sudarshana Suri,
a follower of Ramanuja, quotes the complete passage starting with
`nArAyaNAd.h vinishhpannaM j~nAnaM kR^itayuge sthitam.h' that is cited by
Madhva in his BSBh.
However, I learned the Shloka in a different way.
"alpAksharam-asandigdhaM sAravad vishvato-mukham.
astobham anavadyan~ca sUtraM sUtravido viduh"
And I think, this must be the correct one. The Shloka has been sited in
Tatparya Tika at 1-1-2. However, it is also quoted many times in other
grammatical books.
I have never heard nor red that part of the shloka which has been quoted by
Sudarshana Suri. However, I couldn't find any quotation reference to that in
Madhva's BSBh. One thing is quite well known about Madhva, he usually,
everywhere, even in his GBh, quotes very queer and unknown quotations. Some
say they are usually his own words. Well, I don't know.
>>>>>>>> I am not sure if this is the same person as the author of the
Bhamati
subcommentary.
I'm sure that I wouldn't be able to give an accurate statement concerning
this suspect, but I personally always feel that the Vachaspati Mishra, of
Bhamati, sAmkhya-tattva-kaumudi, tattva-vaishAradi (on the vyAsa-bhAshya of
Yoga-darshana) and tAtparya tIkA, is the same.
Vachaspati Mishra takes a soft view towards Yoga-darshana in the BS "etena
yogaH pratyuktaH", where Shankara firmly refutes Yoga-darshana. This shows
that he was influenced by Yoga Darshana. In the same way, while studying the
tAtparya TikA on the nyAya sUtra "tadatyanta-vimokshopavargaH" (1-1-22), I
somehow had a feeling that he seems to be a bit soft towards Vedanta and
doesn't really try to refute Vedanta Darshana, though it has been highly
discussed and refuted in the nyAya-bhAshyam of vAtsyAyana.
The discussion is about moksha according to nyAya and Vedanta.
On the other hand, the shruti which he quotes there regarding abhaya, is a
shruti, which I have never heard before, though I have studied all the 10
Upanishads with Shankara's Bhashya, and I mean he could really quote some
better ones, if he would really have been the same one who wrote the
commentary on Brahma Sutra. Well, I don't know? Could you suggest me some
book where this is discussed in English (though to get books here in English
is not easy, one has to go to Delhi, which is nearly 300 KM from here, but I
may be able to order it, if you give me the title)
One thing more, I would like to ask you, where can I get the commentary of
Jayatirtha on BSBh of Madhva? I have heard that it exists. However, at
present I have only the Bhashya with me and some points were quite unclear
to me, when I went through it, therefore I would like to have a commentary
in Sanskrit on it, would you suggest me any else one?
However, all this may be just my way of seeing it and an impression, but
that is how I felt. I don't know. shrutvA vidvAMsaH pramANam.
praNamAmi
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Similarities and Differences in Religious Philosophies
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 10:47:48 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01C0C019.59E57820"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C0C019.59E57820
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Similarities and Differences in Religious Philosophies
As much as I as understand, every religious philosophy, like advaita, gnost=
icism or any other, tries to give an explanation to a mystical experience, =
which many may call by different names, God-realization, Self-realization, =
Self-enlightenment, etc. but the experience is the same.
Realization happens in one's own self and than, when he starts to explain i=
t for his disciples using some words, the explanation is a quality of the m=
ind. Therefore, though the realization happened on the spiritual level, the=
explanation/theoretical explanation is done by the mind, and not by the sp=
irit. First, we should also know that it is not the mind who has realized i=
t, but still it is the mind who explains, I don't know how fair it is, well=
, the explanation is being done by a person, who has not experienced it. I =
hope you understand what I mean. Mind is individual, it differs with every =
person, therefore the explanation differs and it has to. When I mean, that =
every philosophy is the same, I don't mean that their system has to be the =
same, I don't mean that their explanation has to be the same, I mean that w=
hich is being explained is the same, can only be the same, therefore has to=
be the same.
You see, God has created this universe with endless varieties, hardly any f=
ace of two person are the same, but still every person in this world has mu=
ch common with another person, eyes, nose, ears, hair, legs, hands, etc. In=
the same way, the outer appearance of all these philosophical systems have=
something in common and something which differs.
Those, who see the difference, quarrel and hate. Those who see the similari=
ty, love and have peace.
For example, those who see the difference, he is a white and he is black, q=
uarrel and hate, and therefore, are disliked by the world and by God. Those=
, who see the similarity, all these are human, love and have peace, and the=
refore are liked by the world and by God.
In this case, what do you choose to do? Try to see the similarity and not b=
e overwhelmed by the differences, understand their cause and purpose. This =
is what I mean to say.
More than that, we should know, what is our purpose with studying a religio=
us philosophy, if it is an academic practice, I don't have anything to say.=
But if it is done from a spiritual standpoint, like I do, my first questio=
n is....are we trying to understand the explanation or that which is being =
explained? If the first, let us be deluded by the differences and if the se=
cond, let us uplift and realize the truth seeing the similarities and tryin=
g to experience that.
I see no difference, if you put a bucket of sweet water in to the salty oce=
an, some who like to see the difference, would say, "O But this sweet water=
, though now in the salty water, surly must remain sweet and therefore diff=
erent from the salty water" and a person who wants to see the similarities,=
would say, "O, but where to find that sweet water, it has merged in to the=
salty water and it has no more any existence of its own". Now, what would =
you say, if they start to quarrel with each other? Both are saying the trut=
h from their own standpoint and no one is really saying something wrong, th=
ough they are contradictory.
However, Upanishads stress on the merging with Brahman from a certain point=
of view, they tell us, "like a river merges in to the ocean, abandoning it=
s name and form, in the same way a self-enlightened person merges in to the=
Supreme Similarity (Parama Saamya) abandoning his name and form (which are=
causing differences)" (Mundaka Upanishad 3-1-3).
As an interpreter of the Upanishads, but only as an interpreter, please try=
to understand what I mean, Shankaracharya is more accurate to the point, t=
han other Acharyas are, because then there is a statement in Katha Upanisha=
ds, "like sweet water is mixed in to sweet water and becomes the same, a se=
lf-enlightened person's soul becomes the same after merging in to the Supre=
me". Now, still a person might like to say, "but that first sweet water pos=
sessed some special crystals and the second didn't have them, therefore, th=
ey still must be somewhere different" or tries to see some other difference=
s, like one water tends to reflect blue light and the second tends to refle=
ct green light, and so on and so forth, he is saying the truth and I would =
understand him. You see, again every thing depends on ones standpoint of mi=
nd, the spirit is the same. I hope you get me.
Loving Regards,
Siddhartha
------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C0C019.59E57820
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<P class=3DMsoNormal><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Similarities and Differenc=
es in=20
Religious Philosophies</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>As much as I as understand, every religious philosophy=
, like=20
advaita, gnosticism or any other, tries to give an explanation to a mystica=
l=20
experience, which many may call by different names, God-realization,=20
Self-realization, Self-enlightenment, etc. but the experience is the same.<=
/P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Realization happens in one's own self and than, when h=
e=20
starts to explain it for his disciples using some words, the explanation is=
a=20
quality of the mind. Therefore, though the realization happened on the spir=
itual=20
level, the explanation/theoretical explanation is done by the mind, and not=
by=20
the spirit. First, we should also know that it is not the mind who has real=
ized=20
it, but still it is the mind who explains, I don't know how fair it is, wel=
l,=20
the explanation is being done by a person, who has not experienced it. I ho=
pe=20
you understand what I mean. Mind is individual, it differs with every perso=
n,=20
therefore the explanation differs and it has to. When I mean, that every=20
philosophy is the same, I don't mean that their system has to be the same, =
I=20
don't mean that their explanation has to be the same, I mean that which is =
being=20
explained is the same, can only be the same, therefore has to be the same.<=
/P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>You see, God has created this universe with endless=20
varieties, hardly any face of two person are the same, but still every pers=
on in=20
this world has much common with another person, eyes, nose, ears, hair, leg=
s,=20
hands, etc. In the same way, the outer appearance of all these philosophica=
l=20
systems have something in common and something which differs.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Those, who see the difference, quarrel and hate. Those=
who=20
see the similarity, love and have peace.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>For example, those who see the difference, he is a whi=
te and=20
he is black, quarrel and hate, and therefore, are disliked by the world and=
by=20
God. Those, who see the similarity, all these are human, love and have peac=
e,=20
and therefore are liked by the world and by God.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>In this case, what do you choose to do? Try to see the=
=20
similarity and not be overwhelmed by the differences, understand their caus=
e and=20
purpose. This is what I mean to say.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>More than that, we should know, what is our purpose wi=
th=20
studying a religious philosophy, if it is an academic practice, I don't hav=
e=20
anything to say. But if it is done from a spiritual standpoint, like I do, =
my=20
first question is....are we trying to understand the explanation or that wh=
ich=20
is being
explained? If the first, let us be deluded by the differences and =
if=20
the second, let us uplift and realize the truth seeing the similarities and=
=20
trying to experience that.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>I see no difference, if you put a bucket of sweet wate=
r in to=20
the salty ocean, some who like to see the difference, would say, "O But thi=
s=20
sweet water, though now in the salty water, surly must remain sweet and=20
therefore different from the salty water" and a person who wants to see the=
=20
similarities, would say, "O, but where to find that sweet water, it has mer=
ged=20
in to the salty water and it has no more any existence of its own". Now, wh=
at=20
would you say, if they start to quarrel with each other? Both are saying th=
e=20
truth from their own standpoint and no one is really saying something wrong=
,=20
though they are contradictory.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>However, Upanishads stress on the merging with Brahman=
from a=20
certain point of view, they tell us, "like a river merges in to the ocean,=
=20
abandoning its name and form, in the same way a self-enlightened person mer=
ges=20
in to the Supreme Similarity (Parama Saamya) abandoning his name and form (=
which=20
are causing differences)" (Mundaka Upanishad 3-1-3).</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>As an interpreter of the Upanishads, but only as an=20
interpreter, please try to understand what I mean, Shankaracharya is more=20
accurate to the point, than other Acharyas are, because then there is a=20
statement in Katha Upanishads, "like sweet water is mixed in to sweet water=
and=20
becomes the same, a self-enlightened person's soul becomes the same after=20
merging in to the Supreme". Now, still a person might like to say, "but tha=
t=20
first sweet water possessed some special crystals and the second didn't hav=
e=20
them, therefore, they still must be somewhere different" or tries to see so=
me=20
other differences, like one water tends to reflect blue light and the secon=
d=20
tends to reflect green light, and so on and so forth, he is saying the trut=
h and=20
I would understand him. You see, again every thing depends on ones standpoi=
nt of=20
mind, the spirit is the same. I hope you get me.<BR>Loving Regards,</P>
<P
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:28:11 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Respected Ashish ji,
Thank you very much for your loving words.
You wrote:
>>>> I always had this nagging doubt about the word Sruti. As we understand
it,
and as Acharyas have explained it, the entire Veda (Samhita to the
Upanishads) is Sruti. Sruti means that which is heard (passed on from the
Rishi (seer) onwards). I used to think that the entire Veda (all four
components of it) was a revelation. As you have put it, and it sounds
logical as well, the Veda, as it is available to us today, has had
additions made to it in the form of Brahamans, Aranyakas and Upanishads.
Let us understand it in these two ways:
1. Every Brahmana states such sayings, like "brahma-vAdino vadanti" ("those
who chant the Vedas, say") when it wants to give or prove something to be
authentic. This shows, that even the seers of the Brahmana's took the Mantra
portion to be authentic.
You may ask, but Brahma means "the Supreme Truth", yes it does in the
Upanishads, but not in the Brahmana, specially not there where they
discussing things related to Yajna and Karma Kanda. The word "Brahma" has
many times been used in the Rig-veda in the meaning of the Veda Mantras and
that is also the only meaning given by Yaska, in his Vedic Grammar,
therefore, Brahma in the pre-Upanishadic texts always meant "the Veda
Mantras". However, the Vedic equivalent of the Brahman is Purusha and
Vishnu.
2. Most of the Upanishads (I mean among the 10 Principle Upanishads) quote
Mantras from different Veda-samhitas and mostly Ricas, which are from
Rig-veda, to prove their own statement. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad even
explains the meanings of some mantras from Yajur Veda Samhita. This shows
that even the Upanishads base themselves on the Samhitas and take it to be
the only authentic text to prove their own view.
>>>>>>>> These may very well be the teachings of the original Rishi but they
are
some sort of an appendix to the mantras of the Samhitas, are they not? In
that case, only the mantras were seen by the Rishi.
The Rishi's are original, there is no doubt. The tradition given in the
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and the names of all those who come in that
tradition, makes every thing doubtless. First thing, the tradition starts
from "svaymbhu brahma" and the names which are listed there, is not the name
of those Rishi's, which are the seers of the Veda Mantras. Even Vedic
Grammarians like Yaska, are listed. However, according to my own opinion,
Yaska has a great influence on the Brahmanas.
Commentators say, svaymbhu brahma is chaturmukha brahma. I totally disagree,
that is a version presented by the Puranas.
A Brahmana phrase makes it very clear, "Svayambhu Brahma, i.e. the Vedas,
approached them, therefore they were called Rishis" This is an ultimate
proof that Svayambhu Brahma is the Vedas. Their tradition started from the
Vedas, therefore the knowledge described in the Upanishads can be totally
accepted to be authentic, but not as an ultimate proof for the truth. That
is only the Veda and nothing else.
>>>>>>>However, reading the Yoga Vasishtha recently and coming acoross
references
to Sage Veda Vyasa (who is yet to come) again fires my confusion. Perhaps,
Sage Vasishtha delivered his sermon to Shri Ram with knowledge of past,
present and future.
You see, Yoga Vashishtha is a very later book, it is even influenced by some
views of Bhaamati, which is a sub-commentary on shankara's commentary on
Brahmasutra. It is a great book, the knowledge described there is very
great, but it is indeed not authentic. I don't think, that Valmiki's
Ramayana, ever tells us something about Rama, which has been told in the
Yoga Vashishtha.
Loving
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:09:29 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001A_01C0C057.0E2705A0"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C0C057.0E2705A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=20
Respected Ravindranath ji wrote:
>>>>>>>u have said that u can show that what is in Upanishads is
in Rg-veda. Before telling my opinion i want to point u that,
the commentaries of samkaracharya , Ramanujacharya & madavacharya
on BhagavadGita varies to a great extent, as we know that Gita
is written around 800BC & these three famous teachers belong to
600 Ad. By telling what i mean is,the slokas in the olden writings
can be interpreted in what ever way we want.
By the above i dont want to say that ur statement "Rg-veda is=20
superset of Upanishads " is wrong ,but i want to point out that,
one cant get correct meaning of a "sloka" or Mantra.One can try to interpre=
t them in the way he wants.=20
I totally disagree with you, one can get a correct meaning of a mantra, aft=
er he has studied the Brahmana's. I'm sure, Brahmanas being a commentary by=
the Rishi's themselves, it can be taken to be authentic and if our explana=
tion is based on the Brahmana's, there shouldn't be any impossibility. Inde=
ed you are saying about Gita, but why not about the Upanishads, no other co=
mmentator than Shankaracharya could write on them, they could write on Gita=
, and even Brahmasutra, but not the Upanishads, because there is not much s=
pace of different interpretations, it is the same with the Vedas.
>>>>>>>The other meaning which i can infer from ur words is, u are assuming=
a god who is the creator of others ( which might break ADVAITA thought).=20
Let me make a correction here that Advaita accepts an existence of Ishvara.=
Shankaracharya has highly discussed and proved it in the Bhashya of Kena U=
panishad. Vedanta is not at all an Anishvaravada. He has created this world=
, he has created human, in the same way he has created the Vedas for the be=
nefit of his creation.
>>>>Even if we think that ur assumption is perfectly true ,the problem of d=
ifferent interpretations will come ( which i have mentioned in the beginnin=
g of this mail , as=20
vedas belong to 1000Bc).=20
My Dear, it is not an assumption, I'm doing it, I'm writing a sanskrit comm=
entary on the Rig-veda, which is not my interpretation, but it is totally, =
each and every statement of it, is based on various Brahmana's and Upanisha=
ds (only the 11 principle Upanishads).
I have done it of the first 4 chapters of Rig-veda, and then I found that I=
should study a bit more of Mimamsa and Brahmana's, therefore I discontinue=
d for now, but I'm going to work further in the rest of my life.
However, such interpretations do exist, like the commentary of Hastamalaka =
and Atmananda, so it is not a first attempt.
>>>>>>Here also u have mentioned the word "Bhakti" in vedas. but Bhakti tow=
ards whom??.
Towards, God's different manifestation and symbols, like the Sun, the Moon,=
the fire, the wind, and in the last towards Him.
Loving Regards,
Siddhartha
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C0C057.0E2705A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<P>Respected Ravindranath ji wrote:</P>
<P>>>>>>>>u have said that u can show that what is in=
=20
Upanishads is<BR>in Rg-veda. Before telling my opinion i want to point u=20
that,<BR>the commentaries of samkaracharya , Ramanujacharya &=20
madavacharya<BR>on BhagavadGita varies to a great extent, as we know that=20
Gita<BR>is written around 800BC & these three famous teachers belong=20
to<BR>600 Ad. By telling what i mean is,the slokas in the olden writings<BR=
>can=20
be interpreted in what ever way we want.<BR>By the above i dont want to say=
that=20
ur statement "Rg-veda is <BR>superset of Upanishads " is wrong ,but i want =
to=20
point out that,<BR>one cant get correct meaning of a "sloka" or Mantra.One =
can=20
try to interpret them in the way he wants. </P>
<P>I totally disagree with you, one can get a correct meaning of a mantra, =
after=20
he has studied the Brahmana's. I'm sure, Brahmanas being a commentary by th=
e=20
Rishi's themselves, it can be taken to be authentic and if our explanation =
is=20
based on the Brahmana's, there shouldn't be any impossibility. Indeed you a=
re=20
saying about Gita, but why not about the Upanishads, no other commentator t=
han=20
Shankaracharya could write on them, they could write on Gita, and even=20
Brahmasutra, but not the Upanishads, because there is not much space of=20
different interpretations, it is the same with the Vedas.</P>
<P>>>>>>>>The other meaning which i can infer from ur =
words=20
is, u are assuming a god who is the creator of others ( which might break=20
ADVAITA thought). </P>
<P>Let me make a correction here that Advaita accepts an existence of Ishva=
ra.=20
Shankaracharya has highly discussed and proved it in the Bhashya of Kena=20
Upanishad. Vedanta is not at all an Anishvaravada. He has created this worl=
d, he=20
has created human, in the same way he has created the Vedas for the benefit=
of=20
his creation.</P>
<P>>>>>Even if we think that ur assumption is perfectly true ,t=
he=20
problem of different interpretations will come ( which i have mentioned in =
the=20
beginning of this mail , as <BR>vedas belong to 1000Bc). </P>
<P>My Dear, it is not an assumption, I'm doing it, I'm writing a sanskrit=20
commentary on the Rig-veda, which is not my interpretation, but it is total=
ly,=20
each and every statement of it, is based on various Brahmana's and Upanisha=
ds=20
(only the 11 principle Upanishads).</P>
<P>I have done it of the first 4 chapters of Rig-veda, and then I found tha=
t I=20
should study a bit more of Mimamsa and Brahmana's, therefore I discontinued=
for=20
now, but I'm going to work further in the rest of my life.</P>
<P>However, such interpretations do exist, like the commentary of Hastamala=
ka=20
and Atmananda, so it is not a first attempt.</P>
<P>>>>>>>Here also u have mentioned the word "Bhakti" in=
=20
vedas. but Bhakti towards whom??.<BR=20
style=3D"mso-special-character: line-break"><BR=20
style=3D"mso-special-character: line-break"></P>
<P>Towards, God's different manifestation and symbols, like the Sun, the Mo=
on,=20
the fire, the wind, and in the last towards Him.</P>
<P>Loving
>From Shrisha Rao <shrao at n...>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:50:27 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Shrisha Rao <shrao at n...>
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Siddhartha Krishna wrote:
> I have never heard nor red that part of the shloka which has been quoted by
> Sudarshana Suri. However, I couldn't find any quotation reference to that in
> Madhva's BSBh.
It is there before the very first sUtra; you don't have to look far.
> One thing is quite well known about Madhva, he usually,
> everywhere, even in his GBh, quotes very queer and unknown quotations. Some
> say they are usually his own words. Well, I don't know.
The argument that they are his own inventions has been made most recently
in the contemporary academic world by Roque Mesquita, `Madhva's Unknown
Literary Sources: Some Observations. Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 2000
(available from www.vedamsbooks.com), which is the reference of choice if
one wishes to learn that view. However, after learning it, one would have
a great deal to unlearn. I am really not happy with the quality of the
writing produced by contemporary academe on the subject of Madhva, and
every piece I have seen to date has errors that a schoolboy would be
ashamed to admit to in front of his friends.
> One thing more, I would like to ask you, where can I get the commentary of
> Jayatirtha on BSBh of Madhva? I have heard that it exists.
It is quite well-known and has been published several times, actually.
Try the Dvaita Vedanta Studies and Research Foundation, which is
publishing a series of volumes with commentaries and subcommentaries on
Madhva's BSBh. (three or so have already appeared). Information about the
DVSRF is available from http://www.dvaita.net among other places.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>
>From Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:03:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
Dear Siddhartha,
Thank you for clarifying my doubts. Some more questions for you.
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:28:11 +0530, Siddhartha Krishna
<siddharthakrishna at V...> wrote:
>
>You see, Yoga Vashishtha is a very later book, it is even influenced by
some
>views of Bhaamati, which is a sub-commentary on shankara's commentary on
>Brahmasutra. It is a great book, the knowledge described there is very
>great, but it is indeed not authentic. I don't think, that Valmiki's
>Ramayana, ever tells us something about Rama, which has been told in the
>Yoga Vashishtha.
Yoga Vasishtha is highly regarded by everyone. I was inspired to take up
its study after reading about it in one of Swami Sivananda's books. Is it a
generally accespted view amongst the scholarly community that Yoga
Vasishtha is a later work (at least not as old as it claims to be)? I would
like to know the opinion of the Mahatmas of Kailas Ashram.
thank you in
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:33:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: New member introduction: Bhadraiah Mallampalli
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
I had been benefitting greatly reading advaita-L, advaitin, and other
non-duality lists.
I wish to add some points to Sri Siddhartha Krishna's excellent presentation
and clarify some issues re: positioning of different vedic texts and
literature.
Thanks in
>From "sthanesvar timalsina" <samvidullasa at H...>
Subject: Unsubscribe me please
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 19:22:50 +0545
Content-Type: text/html
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "sthanesvar timalsina" <samvidullasa at H...>
<html><DIV>
<P>Dear sirs,</P>
<P>I forgot the way how to unsubscribe for short time. I want to unsubscribe for a couple of months. </P>
<P>Sincerely,</P>
<P>SThaneshvar<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <JALDHAR at B...>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara <ADVAITA-L at B...>
<DIV></DIV>>To: ADVAITA-L at L...
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: New member introduction: Bhadraiah Mallampalli
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:33:16 -0500
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I had been benefitting greatly reading advaita-L, advaitin, and other
<DIV></DIV>>non-duality lists.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I wish to add some points to Sri Siddhartha Krishna's excellent presentation
<DIV></DIV>>and clarify some issues re: positioning of different vedic texts and
<DIV></DIV>>literature.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Thanks in advance
<DIV></DIV>>Regards
<DIV></DIV>>Bhadraiah
<DIV></DIV><br clear=all><hr>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com">http://www.hotmail.com
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Disagreement with Parama Guru Kanchi's statement about animal scrifice in the Vedas
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:14:47 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01C0C131.B9A91C80"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C0C131.B9A91C80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
One of our list members has quoted Hounorable and Most Respected Shri Para=
ma Guru Swamigal from Kanchi regarding animal sacrifice. I have personally =
a very great regard to His Holiness, but here I would choose to differ with=
His Holiness Parama Guru Ji in some context, taking Bhagavan Shri Adi Shan=
karacharya's side. I pray to His Holiness, he would forgive me for my stand=
point, but I'm sure about myself, because I think that I'm taking the stand=
point of the Shruti and Adi Acharya. And if I have Acharya and Shruti on my=
side, I don't have any problem in disagreeing with any body.=20
Parama Guru Swami Ji says,
"In the concluding passage of the Chandogya Upanishad whwre ahimsa or=20
non-violence is extolled you find these words, "Anyatra tirthebhyah".=20
It means ahimsa must be practised except with regard to Vedic rites."
Source : Hindu Dharma Copyright : Bharativya Vidya Bhavan=20
There is a problem with this sort of interpretation. Bhagavan Shankarachar=
ya clearly writes in his commentary,
"bhikshAnimittamaTanAdinApi parapIDA syAdityata Aha-anyatra tIrthebhyaH."
"But if a person goes for the purpose of Bhiksha, even by that he would cau=
se pain to others, therefore (the Shruti) says, "except with regard to Vedi=
c rites'".
So, according to Bhagavan Shankaracharya the Vedic rite is not to kill anim=
als as it has been presented by ParamaGuruJi, but it is to ask for Bhiksha =
to a person.
Then, again Paramacharya Ji Swamigal writes:
There is a reference in the=20
"Vedas to Indra killing his foe when he was "intoxicated" with=20
somarasa. People who spread the above falsehoods have recourse to "=20
arthavada" and base their perverse views on this passage."
Here, though I don't fully understand what Paramacharya Ji wants to say, b=
ecause of my limited knowledge of English, I understand that he wants to sa=
y that Indra's intoxication etc. which is described in the Vedas, is an "ar=
thavaada." If this understanding is correct, than I again have an objection=
and I would disagree with him.
First let me tell a bit about "arthavAda". Those stories which are told in =
the Brahmana's (as there are no stories in the Samhitas), they usually don'=
t have much appropriate meaning, and therefore according to Purva Mimamsa P=
hilosophy they are called "arthavaada", and thus they are accepted as to be=
a praise, but not having much meaning (in other way it is a sort of saying=
in a good way "useless or meaningless"). That is very good about the Brahm=
anas, etc. but I wouldn't really like to state the same about Indra, as Bha=
gavan Yaska in his Nirukta, which is a limb of the Vedas or one among the 6=
Vedangas, gives a different explanation to it, which is more understandabl=
e than that of H.H. Paramacharya Swamigal Ji.
According to Yaska Bhagavan (2-16-3), this is a upamA (rUpaka, according to=
Durgacharyas commentary), i.e. a symbolical statement. It is a symbol to a=
different thing, which happens on a celestial (adhidaiva) or spiritual (ad=
hyaatma) level.
I think, this is more understandable, because simply saying that it is just=
for the purpose of praising something and it doesn't mean much, I wouldn't=
like to say that about the Vedas, and surely not if some of our Great Seer=
s state something differently, isn't it?
However, I'm again very sorry for my standpoint, but if any scholar has any=
difficulty in accepting it, I would highly appreciate a further scholarly =
discussion on the subject, for better understanding, as I have only joined =
the list for the purpose that I may be able to interact with scholars and w=
ould be able to understand the secrets of these great mystical Shastras in =
a better way, for my own spiritual and intellectual progress.
I would also like to share an information with all of you, most of the Ved=
ic scriptures call Yajna by the name of "adhvara", and specially those Yajn=
as related to Yajur Veda are called "Adhvara", and do you know what the mea=
ning of the word is (according to Bhagavan Yaska), "a deed containing no vi=
olence". Isn't it interesting enough?
However, Alas! What a great religion, but rarely understood by scholars!
I would highly appreciate any scholar's comment on my understanding. And I =
would feel very sorry if my above statement hurts anybodies feeling and I d=
o apologize for that.
I know children are always pardoned!
Loving Regards,
Siddhartha Krishna
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C0C131.B9A91C80
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> One of our list members has quoted Houno=
rable=20
and Most Respected Shri Parama Guru Swamigal from Kanchi regarding animal=20
sacrifice. I have personally a very great regard to His Holiness, but here =
I=20
would choose to differ with His Holiness Parama Guru Ji in some context, ta=
king=20
Bhagavan Shri Adi Shankaracharya's side. I pray to His Holiness, he would=20
forgive me for my standpoint, but I'm sure about myself, because I think th=
at=20
I'm taking the standpoint of the Shruti and Adi Acharya. And if I have Acha=
rya=20
and Shruti on my side, I don't have any problem in disagreeing with any bod=
y.=20
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Parama Guru Swami Ji says,</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> "In the concluding passage of the Chandogya Upan=
ishad=20
whwre ahimsa or <BR>non-violence is extolled you find these words, "Anyatra=
=20
tirthebhyah". <BR>It means ahimsa must be practised except with regard to V=
edic=20
rites."</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Source : Hindu Dharma Copyright : Bharativya Vidya=20
Bhavan <BR></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> There is a problem with this sort of interpretat=
ion.=20
Bhagavan Shankaracharya clearly writes in his commentary,</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>"bhikshAnimittamaTanAdinApi parapIDA syAdityata Aha-an=
yatra=20
tIrthebhyaH."</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>"But if a person goes for the purpose of Bhiksha, even=
by=20
that he would cause pain to others, therefore (the Shruti) says, "except wi=
th=20
regard to Vedic rites'".</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>So, according to Bhagavan Shankaracharya the Vedic rit=
e is=20
not to kill animals as it has been presented by ParamaGuruJi, but it is to =
ask=20
for Bhiksha to a person.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Then, again Paramacharya Ji Swamigal writes:</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>There is a reference in the <BR=20
style=3D"mso-special-character: line-break"><BR=20
style=3D"mso-special-character: line-break"></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>"Vedas to Indra killing his foe when he was "intoxicat=
ed"=20
with <BR>somarasa. People who spread the above falsehoods have recourse to =
"=20
<BR>arthavada" and base their perverse views on this passage."</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> Here, though I don't fully understand what Param=
acharya=20
Ji wants to say, because of my limited knowledge of English, I understand t=
hat=20
he wants to say that Indra's intoxication etc. which is described in the Ve=
das,=20
is an "arthavaada." If this understanding is correct, than I again have an=
=20
objection and I would disagree with him.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>First let me tell a bit about "arthavAda". Those stori=
es=20
which are told in the Brahmana's (as there are no stories in the Samhitas),=
they=20
usually don't have much appropriate meaning, and therefore according to Pur=
va=20
Mimamsa Philosophy they are called "arthavaada", and thus they are accepted=
as=20
to be a praise, but not having much meaning (in other way it is a sort of s=
aying=20
in a good way "useless or meaningless"). That is very good about the Brahma=
nas,=20
etc. but I
wouldn't really like to state the same about Indra, as Bhagavan =
Yaska=20
in his Nirukta, which is a limb of the Vedas or one among the 6 Vedangas, g=
ives=20
a different explanation to it, which is more understandable than that of H.=
H.=20
Paramacharya Swamigal Ji.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>According to Yaska Bhagavan (2-16-3), this is a upamA=
=20
(rUpaka, according to Durgacharyas commentary), i.e. a symbolical statement=
. It=20
is a symbol to a different thing, which happens on a celestial (adhidaiva) =
or=20
spiritual (adhyaatma) level.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>I think, this is more understandable, because simply s=
aying=20
that it is just for the purpose of praising something and it doesn't mean m=
uch,=20
I wouldn't like to say that about the Vedas, and surely not if some of our =
Great=20
Seers state something differently, isn't it?</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>However, I'm again very sorry for my standpoint, but i=
f any=20
scholar has any difficulty in accepting it, I would highly appreciate a fur=
ther=20
scholarly discussion on the subject, for better understanding, as I have on=
ly=20
joined the list for the purpose that I may be able to interact with scholar=
s and=20
would be able to understand the secrets of these great mystical Shastras in=
a=20
better way, for my own spiritual and intellectual progress.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> I would also like to share an information with a=
ll of=20
you, most of the Vedic scriptures call Yajna by the name of "adhvara", and=
=20
specially those Yajnas related to Yajur Veda are called "Adhvara", and do y=
ou=20
know what the meaning of the word is (according to Bhagavan Yaska), "a deed=
=20
containing no violence". Isn't it interesting enough?</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>However, Alas! What a great religion, but rarely under=
stood=20
by scholars!</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>I would highly appreciate any scholar's comment on my=
=20
understanding. And I would feel very sorry if my above statement hurts anyb=
odies=20
feeling and I do apologize for that.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-=
family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: =
EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">I=20
know children are always pardoned!</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Loving Regards,</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Siddhartha
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:09:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: New menmber introduction: Arunchandar Vasan
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Hello,
I am a first year Ph.D. student in CS at the Univ. of Maryland at College
Park. I hold a bachelor's from the IIT at Madras. We are affiliated
primarily to the Kaamakoti Peetham at Kancheepuram. To be frank, I really
don't know much about adhvaitha. I came across your site on the net,
found it pretty informative and thought this would be a good way to learn
about my
>From "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Subject: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 14:35:54 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
I thank Sri Siddhartha Krishna for providing invaluable quotes from rare
places of the scriptures (e.g. adhvara).
The question is, do I want to undergo surgery by a doctor who had never
dissected a rabbit? There seems to be a science behind the dissection of
animal and distribution of certain parts to different priests. Also please
note "(The priest) brahmaNacchAnsin is in here at the middle navel suture.."
(kausItaki.Br pp 518 M.B.das).
My interpretation: The embryo gets used to thinking of the navel as
the source of nourishment for the first 9-10 months in the most
formative stage of its nervous system, its neurology is designed to
think that way, but this 'childhood experience' will continue to
drive it even after the navel has been stitched up. As my father told me,
the navel is known to be a residing place for 'samAna', the highest of the
five prANas.
The knowledge of location of priests such as hotR etc in the body may be too
important to lose, hence the practice of killing of animals for a practical
demonstration. In this age of advanced anatomy, we dont need to kill
animals, but we lost the knowledge anyway.
As for what should be considered 'veda', there need not be any
discrimination. Any scripture that contains words like agni, prajapati is
fit to be considered. Why would any one use these words without knowing what
they mean or for a purpose different from their original use? We do not see
any apparent plagiarization of the original works for a different reason.
These words are particularly absent in later literature precisely because
our later interpreters made sure to keep the purity of the original works.
We can compare the set of scriptures to an automibile. Rgveda is like a
collection of explanations of different parts of the automobile such as
carburettor, spark pulg etc. yajurveda is like the operating instructions or
driver's manual (so that one can minimize any injury to life or property -
adhvara). sAma veda is like the maintenance manual, servicing etc to keep
the machine running perfectly. brAhmaNas are the explanations of how
individual systems like ignition, exhaust, transmission and braking work.
gRhya sUtras are like how we clean the interior and do car wash,
registration, license etc. Other sUtras are respective technologoes that go
into it. As such nothing is out of place.
Best regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:06:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Disagreement with Parama Guru Kanchi's statement about animal scrifice in the Vedas
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Siddhartha Krishna wrote:
>
>
> There is a problem with this sort of interpretation. Bhagavan
> Shankaracharya clearly writes in his commentary,
>
> "bhikshAnimittamaTanAdinApi parapIDA syAdityata Aha-anyatra
> tIrthebhyaH."
>
> "But if a person goes for the purpose of Bhiksha, even by that he
> would cause pain to others, therefore (the Shruti) says, "except with
> regard to Vedic rites'".
>
> So, according to Bhagavan Shankaracharya the Vedic rite is not to kill
> animals as it has been presented by ParamaGuruJi, but it is to ask for
> Bhiksha to a person.
>
That doesn't necessary follow at all. An equally valid interpretation is
that Bhiksha is also a vedic rite. The general rule is that which causes
pain to others is to be avoided. Even a vegetarian Bhiksha would cause
pain to living things. If the general were to be applied, the Vedic rules
for bhiksha would be for naught. Thus specifically there is an exception
for vedic karmas such as bhiksha.
Also see the bhashya for the sutra ashuddhamiti chenna shabdAt (BS 3.1.25)
Shankaracharya makes it quite clear the sutra talking about
"pashuhiMsAdiyogAt" karmas and they are not to be considered ashuddha
because they are prescribed by the Vedas.
Furthermore as Smartas, we consider shishtachar to have equal force to
Shruti and smrti (as long as they do not conflict) so a valid question
would be what is the actual practice of the Shrautis? I know a man who is
the descendant of agnihotris and in fact witnessed a soma yajna during the
1960's. He confirmed that an actual animal was used. It would be
interesting to know if Somayajis of other sampradayas do this or not.
> Then, again Paramacharya Ji Swamigal writes:
>
> There is a reference in the
>
>
>
> "Vedas to Indra killing his foe when he was "intoxicated" with
> somarasa. People who spread the above falsehoods have recourse to "
> arthavada" and base their perverse views on this passage."
>
> Here, though I don't fully understand what Paramacharya Ji wants to
> say, because of my limited knowledge of English, I understand that he
> wants to say that Indra's intoxication etc. which is described in the
> Vedas, is an "arthavaada." If this understanding is correct, than I
> again have an objection and I would disagree with him.
>
I take it to mean he is talking about those people who confuse soma with
sura. He is saying they are taking the word "intoxicating" out of
context.
> First let me tell a bit about "arthavAda". Those stories which are
> told in the Brahmana's (as there are no stories in the Samhitas), they
> usually don't have much appropriate meaning, and therefore according
> to Purva Mimamsa Philosophy they are called "arthavaada", and thus
> they are accepted as to be a praise, but not having much meaning (in
> other way it is a sort of saying in a good way "useless or
> meaningless"). That is very good about the Brahmanas, etc.
>From what I understand of the Mimamsaka approach, arthavada is not just
stories (though they are the greatest part of it) but any vakya that
does not a direct command (vidhi) or prohibition (niShedha) of a
particular action. They are not meaningless or useless because they are
connected to and provide some information about some action. One example
is "Pushan has no teeth" Whether or not He does is not the point but
to call attention to the rule that the offering to Pushan should be made
with soft rice mixed with ghee.
So the mention of Indra being "intoxicated" with Soma must reveal
something about the role of Indra and/or Soma in some yajna.
> but I
> wouldn't really like to state the same about Indra, as Bhagavan Yaska
> in his Nirukta, which is a limb of the Vedas or one among the 6
> Vedangas, gives a different explanation to it, which is more
> understandable than that of H.H. Paramacharya Swamigal Ji.
>
> According to Yaska Bhagavan (2-16-3), this is a upamA (rUpaka,
> according to Durgacharyas commentary), i.e. a symbolical statement. It
> is a symbol to a different thing, which happens on a celestial
> (adhidaiva) or spiritual (adhyaatma) level.
>
> I think, this is more understandable, because simply saying that it is
> just for the purpose of praising something and it doesn't mean much, I
> wouldn't like to say that about the Vedas, and surely not if some of
> our Great Seers state something differently, isn't it?
>
Doesn't the Nirukta itself mention that there are several approaches to
Vedic interpretation? The nairuktas had one way while the yajnikas
(precursors of the Mimamsakas) had another which over time has proven to
be more popular. But I don't think you can say either is more or less
understandable.
> I would also like to share an information with all of you, most of
> the Vedic scriptures call Yajna by the name of "adhvara", and
> specially those Yajnas related to Yajur Veda are called "Adhvara", and
> do you know what the meaning of the word is (according to Bhagavan
> Yaska), "a deed containing no violence". Isn't it interesting enough?
It is but if Vedic karma is de facto ahimsaka then it doesn't have any
bearing on the matter at hand.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...
>From Sankaran Aniruddhan <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:34:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: sanyAsins, jnAnIs and Sri gaudapAda
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Sankaran Aniruddhan <owner-advaita-l at L...>
I have a few of questions regarding sanyAsins, jnAnIs and Sri gaudapAda. I would be grateful if members could clarify them for me.
1) Is there any dietary restriction for sanyAsins, like vegetarianism etc? or can they accept any food given as bhikshA? I remember reading somewhere that even though buddhism placed a lot of emphasis on ahimsa, buddhist monks were allowed to accept meat etc as bhikshA since it was not cooked specifically for them.
2) I'd read in the list archives that bhakti is of three forms, karma mixed with bhakti, pure bhakti and bhakti mixed with jnAna. Is it possible for a jivanmukta to have pure jnAna? Isn't it natural for them to have jnAna mixed with bhakti?
3) How is it known that Sri gaudapAda is Sri Sam.kara's parama-guru? Is it known only from the mAdhavIya-Sam.kara-digvijaya? Or is it known from the guru-paramparA of the mathAs? Does Sri Sam.kara mention in the kArikA-bhASya that Sri gaudapAda is his guru's guru? It seems to me that there is a big time gap between Suka and gaudapAda, who are guru and shishya, if gaudapAda is Sam.kara's guru's guru. I think Sri Ashish had asked a similar question some time back and Sri Jaldhar had mentioned that the previous Kanchi AchArya had said that gaudapAda was cursed to be brahma-rAkSasa for thousands of years. Is this what the SringerI matha also says? I would also be grateful if Sri Jaldhar could write about the details of how Sri gaudapAda was cursed to become a brahma-rAkSasa.
thanks,
Aniruddhan
Sruti smRti purANAnAm Alayam karuNAlayam
namAmi bhagavatpAda Sam.karam lokaSam.karam
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
>From Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:54:20 -0500
Subject: Re: sanyAsins, jnAnIs and Sri gaudapAda
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:34:17 -0400, Sankaran Aniruddhan
<aniruddhan at E...> wrote:
>
>3) How is it known that Sri gaudapAda is Sri Sam.kara's parama-guru? Is it
known only from the mAdhavIya-Sam.kara-digvijaya? Or is it known from the
guru-paramparA of the mathAs? Does Sri Sam.kara mention in the kArikA-
bhASya that Sri gaudapAda is his guru's guru? It seems to me that there is
a big time gap between Suka and gaudapAda, who are guru and shishya, if
gaudapAda is Sam.kara's guru's guru. I think Sri Ashish had asked a similar
question some time back and Sri Jaldhar had mentioned that the previous
Kanchi AchArya had said that gaudapAda was cursed to be brahma-rAkSasa for
thousands of years. Is this what the SringerI matha also says? I would also
be grateful if Sri Jaldhar could write about the details of how Sri
gaudapAda was cursed to become a brahma-rAkSasa.
>
There is another interesting thing about Adi Shankara's gurus that I read
about once. If you have read Autobiography of a Yogi (Paramhansa
Yogananda), you might have read about Mahavtaar Babaji, who is today
considered to be about 1,850 years of age and is still alive. It has been
mentioned in the book that Mahavtaar Babaji initiated Adi Shankara into
Kriya Yoga. When I had asked about this on this list, Sri Vidyasankar had
mentioned that there is a belief among few that Mahavtaar Babaji is the
same as GovindapAda, Adi Shankara's Guru. The Shankara Digvijaya
(MaadhavIya)[Published by Advaita Ashram] does not point to this belief
though.
Reading the Digvijaya's introduction, and the speculation it talks about of
Adi Shankara's date, I came away with the impression that all dates that
are accpeted today are speculative at best. There are arguments to support
His time as the Kanchi Math believes, and of course there is the chronology
of the Sringeri Math. However, this is probably too scholarly, and
irrelevant, for me so I don't worry too much about it
>From "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii at y...>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: shrI viShNu sahasranAma bhAShyam.h
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii at y...>
shrii yudhiShThira uvAcha -
kimeka.n daivata.n loke
kiM vApyeka.n parAyaNam.h
stuvantaH kam kamarchantaH
prApnuyurmAnvAH shubham.h
shrii yudhiShThira spoke:
Who is the one (supreme) deity in this world and what is the supreme
goal/refuge? Praising whom and worshipping whom one attains all
auspicious things?
sh.nkara's commentary and a brief (approximate) translation:
kimeka.n daivata.n deva ityarthaH, svArthe taddhita pratyaya
vidhAnAt.h,
loke lokana hetubhUte samasta vidyA sthAne uktamiti prathamaH
prashnaH.
First question is, in this world which is seen (known) through all
vidya-s who is declared as the supreme deity. (vidya sthAna-s are two
fold, veda vidya sthAna is veda-s, vedangas, mImAmsa, nyAya shAstra,
dharma shAstra, and purANa-s; and loka vidya sthana is ayurveda, artha
shAstra, gAndharva veda and dhanur veda*. World and all about it is
known through these sources of knowledge]
kiM vApyeka.n parAyaNa.n tasmin.h loke ekaM parAyaNa.n cha kim.h ? |
param.h ayanaM prAptavyaM sthAnaM parAyaNam.h. yadAGYayA pravartante
sarve; yasminnnadhigate hR^idaya granthirbhidyate,
bhidyate hR^idayagranthi shchidyante sarva samshayA.H |
xIyante chasya karmANi tasmindR^iShTe parAvare || (muNDakopaniShad
2-2-8**)
iti shruteH |
yasya viGYAnamAtreNa Ananda laxaNo moxaH prApyate; yadvidvAnna bibheti
kutashcana ; yatpraviShTasya na vidyate punarbhavaH ;yasya cha
vedanAt.h tat.h eva bhavati, 'brahma veda bramhaiva bhavati' (MU 3-2-9)
iti shruteH | yadvihAyAparaH panthAH nR^iNAM nAsti, "nAnyaH panthA
vidyate.ayanAya" (SU 3-8) iti shruteH | taduktam.h ekaM parAyaNam.h.
loke tatkim.h iti dvitIyaH prashnaH.
In this Universe who is the supreme refuge/goal? The supreme goal or
refuge is He whose orders all obey; knowing whom the fetter of
ignorance that binds the heart falls apart as declared in the shruti
"seeing whom who is both the cause and effect, the fetters of hearts
falls apart, all doubts are destroyed, and all actions ceases to be",
merely by knowing whom one attains the liberation which is bliss,
knowing whom one does not fear anymore, knowing which one becomes that
itself as declared by the shruti "brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati",
entering which one does take birth anymore, excepting which seekers
have no other way as declared by the shruti "other than Him I do not
know any other way", that is called as parAyaNam or supreme refuge. Who
is such a refuge in this Universe is the second question.
kaM katamaM devaM stuvantaH guNakIrtanaM kurvantaH, kaM katamaM devaM
archantaH bAhyamAbhyantaraM vA archanaM bahuvidhaM kurvantaH mAnavAH
manusutAH shubhaM kalyANaM svarga apavargAdi phalaM prApnuyuH
labheran.h
iti punaH prashnadvayam.h.
Praising whom, singing whose kalyANa guNa-s; and worshipping whom
externally, internally in various ways, men, descendants of manu,
attain all good things, heaven and liberation are the next two
questions.
* From Tamil translation of sahasranAma by aNNa (subrahmaNya aiyar).
This is a brief translation with sides notes from mainly shankara's
commentary.
** I also refer to the English translation by N. S. Ananta Krishna
shAstry.
*** Sanskrit text was encoded by shrImati Savithri Devaraj.
(I did not understand the line svArthe taddhita pratyaya vidhAnat. Does
it mean that the following arrangement (vidhAna) of questions starting
with kimekam by yudhiShThira is was furthering one's own svArthe
welfare (taddhita pratyaya)?)
Your comments are welcome. As you see I am typing this at midnight, I
have no doubt it will be full of errors. Be warned.
parandhAma rUpaam bhaje pANDya bAlAm.
=====
ambaaL daasan
Ravi
sharaNAgata raxakI nivEyani sadA ninnu nammiti mInAxI
http://www.ambaa.org/ http://www.advaita-vedanta.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: New member introduction: Bhadraiah Mallampalli
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:42:35 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
You are most welcome Respected Bhadraiah Ji,
> I had been benefitting greatly reading advaita-L, advaitin, and other
> non-duality lists.
>
> I wish to add some points to Sri Siddhartha Krishna's excellent
presentation
> and clarify some issues re: positioning of different vedic texts and
> literature.
>
> Thanks in advance
> Regards
>
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: Vegetarianism in the vedas
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:55:12 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Respected Shrisha Rao ji,
thank you very very much for the precious information.
Thank you very
>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:50:08 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
> I would
> like to know the opinion of the Mahatmas of Kailas Ashram.
No one here in Kailas Ashram studies Yoga Vashishtha. Then, the Mahatmas
also don't read any book from a historical standpoint. Therefore they don't
have anything to say However, I would ask Peethaacharya Swami Ji when I see
him for the next time and I would tell you.
Loving
>From "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii at y...>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Fwd: Notes on BSB I-i-4-1F for forward to Advaita-L
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-675564317-986923755=:24409"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii at y...>
--0-675564317-986923755=:24409
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Note: forwarded message attached.
=====
ambaaL daasan
Ravi
sharaNAgata raxakI nivEyani sadA ninnu nammiti mInAxI
http://www.ambaa.org/ http://www.advaita-vedanta.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
--0-675564317-986923755=:24409
Content-Type: message/rfc822
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list