Statements in our shastras

[Erama Kiruttinan]

Namaste.
"Nayars" or "Nairs" are actually shudras.
They follow a matrilineal system.
Hence  a Brahmin [ Nambudiri] man or a Kshatriya [Varma,Raja] man might have
an alliance with a Nair woman. Their progeny belongs to 'Nair' caste. By
this system, there are instances of paternal grandfather being a Brahmin, as
he was belonging to Nambudiri community; father a Kshatriya as his mother
was from Varma community and son a Shudra as his mother was from the Nair
community.
This is mindboggling, but this was the system being followed till very
recently.

Nowadays, with some exceptions, Nairs marry amongst themselves, Varmas marry
amongst themselves and so do the Nambudiris.








>From: Vidyasankar <vsundaresan at HOTMAIL.COM>
>Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
><ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
>To: ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG
>Subject: Re: Statements in our shastras
>Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:16:19 -0500
>
> >Another qustion I have is about non dvijas not being
> >being taught Vedas.  Does it apply also to sanyasis of
> >non-dvija background ? (that is their purva ashrama)
> >For example, Swami Chinmayananda was of the Nayar
> >caste in Kerala (which belongs to the Sudra varna) and
>
>Just to be a little legalistic about it - there are strong arguments for
>classifying Nayars as Kshatriyas. Similarly with the Marathas in
>Maharashtra
>and various other ruling/martial groups of people. These have been made
>many
>times in the past, especially over the last two centuries. There has been a
>particularly south Indian trend to designate all non-Brahmana-s as being
>Shudras. This is highly debatable, and well-respected authorities on the
>dharmashAstras have argued against it.
>
>Vidyasankar


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

>From  Wed Mar  5 16:52:57 2003
Message-Id: <WED.5.MAR.2003.165257.0800.>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:52:57 -0800
Reply-To: sanjay1297 at yahoo.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: Sanjay Verma <sanjay1297 at YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Statements in our shastras
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0303051534310.25922 at samadhi.braincells.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-577775045-1046911977=:77930"

--0-577775045-1046911977=:77930
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii



>1. What are the "times"? For many shastras we don't exactly when they
>were composed or in what millieu. How do we know "the times" have
>changed? For instance I live in America where most people eat meat.
>Should I start eating meat too becuase that is what everyone else does?
>Or convert to Christianity becuase my minority religion is just a cultural
>bias?

We may not be able to accurately date the shastras, but we do know that they are not in our time., and can safely say that they were composed much before us. How do we know the times have changed? Well, since there seems to be much emphasis on referring to those shastras, then even in the shastras it states that time is changing, and what is appropriate for one yuga is not necessarily appropriate for another yuga, and that even within a yuga there is progressive deterioration of dharma. As for eating meat, nowhere is it forbidden for all to eat meat -- only for Brahmins. In fact, for a Kshatriya warrier, it is encouraged to eat meat. The point is not wether or not you should eat meat based on your cultural surroundings, but rather, as was quoted on this discussion group some time back, "Better a man who eats pork and thinks of God than one who abstains from eating meat and does not think of God." Cleearly, what is more important is the cultivation of divinity within one's heart, not the outward actions. In fact, if one looks at the “evolution” of shruti, one sees that the reason the Upanishads came into being was that the ritualistic aspect of the Vedas was being mispraciced by the people as perfunctory rites. So, the Upanishads, which are supposedly a condensation of the Vedas, remind us that the intent and knowledge behind the yajna is more important than the physical act. Furthermore, an act done in a sacrifice without the awareness of Brahman being the sacrifice, is not Vedanta – it’s just propitiating a specific deity for a specific reward.


>2. You say Shruti should be considered infallible. What will you do if
>objectionable statements are found there? Maharshi Yajnavalkyas'
>teachings are mentioned in the Upanishads. There is also a popular and
>influential dharmashastra called Yajnavalkyasmrti. Why should some of his
>words be considered infallible and others fallible? Actually Hinduism
>doesn't have the concept of infallibility of scripture as some other
>religions do.

I agree with you... I was merely pointing out that some scriptures are considered to have more weight than others. Clearly, the shruti texts have the greatest weight among the scriptures. Since you brought it up, I have also read (can't remember the citation at present) that the greatest authority for wisdom is one's own experience. One should never accept something which does not correspond to one's exerience. The emphasis in Hiduism, especially Vedanta, has been "experience" (i.e, to practice cultivating that perception of the oneness of the universe). Once again, the point is not what is "infallible", but which carries more weight. If something is found objectionable in a shastra, one should be able to use one's own intellect, with reference to shruti texts, to completely disregard any objectionable statements. I do not have any suggestions about what one should do if one finds something objetionable in a shruti text... The Upanishads are considered shruti, right? Many statements in one ostensibly contradict statements in another. Paradox is inherent in the shruti texts, precisely because the subject is too complex for our most uncultivated minds (as most human beings are) to comprehend.

>> Thus, women and low-caste memebrs being excluded from spiritual
>> teachings is absurd.

>Ah but the issue is whether they are allowed to learn the Vedas. The
>Vedas are only part of the spiritual teachings of Advaita Vedanta so it
>does not follow that exclusion from the Vedas is exclusion altogether.
>But even if it were the case, from the Advaita point of view it would not
>matter at all. Brahman pervade all. A rock or tree is also Brahman but
>it cannot know it because it has no power of self-reflection. People on
>the other hand even people who have never studied the Vedas do have that
>capacity.

I am sorry for this. As I said, I had not been reading all the postings, so I didn’t realize that the topic was whether or not they should have access to the Vedas. However, my argument still holds. One can probably find any argument to support the view in one's heart. I don't have the exact reference, but in the Upanishads (Chandogya?) there is a story about a boy who comes to a Brahmin for teaching. The guru asks him about his lineage. The boy replies: my mother is a prostitute, and hence I do no know who my father is. The guru accepts the boy as a student, saying, truly you must be a Brahmin for only a Brahmin would practice such adherence to truth without regard to shame. So, if only Brahmins (or other dvijas) should have access to the Vedas, then clearly who is a “Brahmin” is determined more by one’s svabhava (inner, true nature) than one’s outer body, which is discarded anyway.


>> I
>> believe on this website, it states that all commentators on Advaita
>> Vedanta make their name by commenting on some canonical works (e.g.,
>> Bhagavad Gita, BrahmaSutra, etc.).

>But note of those three, the Gita (part of the Mahabharata) and
>Brahmasutras are the product of "fallible" human authors. :)

Yes, this was brought to my attention last time also (i.e., that the Gita is actually a smriti text). While that may be technically correct, I don’t think such classification is appropriate in the Hindu tradition. First, the Gita is only part of the Mahabharata from a literary standpoint, not a spiritual standpoint. What I mean by this is that there are many (hundreds?) recensions of the epics (both the Mahabharata and Ramayana). However, there is only 1 Gita, without any recensions. Through the centuries all 700 verses come down to us without even one syllable being changed. How could this happen if this “portion” of the Mahabharata did not carry more authority and value than other smriti texts? Now before anyone points out to me that some place 701 verses in the Gita, I am aware of this. But even this additional verse is consistent in that if it appears anywhere, it appears in the same form.  No such consistency can be found with the epics or nonshruti texts.

As for the Brahmasutra, I do not have any knowledge of what weight it carries in the tradition. I was under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that the sutras carry more weight than the shastras.

>> So, here I refer to BG 5:18, and I
>> quote from Adi Shankaracharya's commentary "Bhagavadgita Bhasya": "The
>> sages perceive the same truth in the Brahmana, rich in knowledge and
>> culture, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eating outcaste." BG 5:18
>> Shankara's commentary: "In the saatvika brahmana, endowed with knowledge
>> ad culture, who has the best latent imporession of life's experiences,
>> inanintermediate being like the cow that is rajasic without such
>> impression, and in the low merely tamasic beings like anelephant etc,
>> the sages are trained to perceive the same, single, and immutable
>> Brahman, wholly unaffected by constituents like the sattva and by the
>> latent impression they generate." Furthermore, Shankaracharya
>> anticipates the objection: "Now, is not the food offered by such tained
>> indivuduals forbidden? Vide, the smriti: 'The food should not be
>> accepted from him who invidiously treats equals as unequals and unequals
>> as eqals' GDS. Answer: 'No, the are not tainted. How?' " [going on to BG
>> 5:19 for further explanation] Furthermore, in BG 18:30-32, Sri Krishna
>> says that that intellect is rajasic [not as pure as sattvic] which
>> erroneously understands righteousness and unreighteousness, duty and
>> non-dute. Adi Shankaracharya explains in his commentary that the
>> righteousness here refers to those actions enjoined by the shastras and
>> unrighteousness referes to those actions forbidden by the shastras.
>> Clearly, the lesson here is to rise above such shastric morals and focus
>> more on the universal, all-pervading divinity.

>The message here as Shankaracharya intends it is to take sannyasa. Only
>the one who has renounced the world can rise above Shastric morals. Those
>of us in this world however are the type who have non-duties and duties
>etc. It is illegitimate for such people to use Vedantic notions as an
>excuse to shirk the dictates of the shastras.



Yes, this can be debated on both sides. Perhaps we are splitting hairs. The message of the Gita and the Upanishads is to place a greater emphasis on knowledge and “perception of oneness” than on ritualistic duty. I brought this up from the perspective of debating the shastras. The Upanishads and the Gita do seem to place greater emphasis on knowledge and meditation and true sanyas (true sanyas in the Gita not being used to describe an ascetic but rather one who gives up attachment in the heart/mind) than on physical ritual.

BG 12:12 “Knowledge is superior to repeated efforts; superior to knowledge is meditation. Renunciation of the fruits of works is superior to meditation. Of this renunciation is peace born, immediately.”

If others find it valuable to debate the shastric injunctions, then I apologize for my interjection. I thought the purpose of this discussion group was Vedanta, and the shastras certainly do have a place, but I don’t think that they are regarded as highly in the Vedantic tradition as the Upanishads and the Gita, and certainly not the Vedas.


>> Near the end of the BG
>> (18:67-71), Sri Krishna says that "this" (i.e, BG) should not be taught
>> to a non-ascetic, a non-devotee, a person who does not seek it, or a
>> person who reviles Him. Note, that there is no mention of caste or
>> gender. Sri Krishna states that A N Y O N E who teaches the BG (to
>> devotees), or who studies this righteous dialogue, or who listens to it,
>> will have offered Him the knowledge sacrifice, which earlier He states
>> is among the highest of sacrifices.

>And this is the key to the dilemna. Those who are barred from the Vedas
>can still know the way to liberation through the Gita and other Smrtis
>which deal with adhyatmic topics. And their goal if they reach it will be
>the same as one who has mastered all four Vedas.



Once again I refer to the story from the Upanishads about a true Brahmin being one whose character demonstrates his/her worthiness to learn scripture, not one’s birth body.


>> I do hope that we can focus more on the spirit of the all-pervasive
>> Brahman and how to achieve that realization... the ritualistic practices
>> enjoined by the Shastras often times serve to be more divisive rather
>> than cultivating universal love.

>Now I am about to say something that might sound quite cynical but here
>goes: universal love is a stupid idea.

>Take Osama bin Laden. Quite frankly I hate him for what he almost did to
>my family. Thankfully so do many other people so we may soon be rid of
>him but do you really think it would be a good idea to love him? You can
>argue that the present course of action being taken against him is not the
>best or that hating him should not lead to hating all Muslims and these
>are valid points but are still not the same as universal love. I wrote
>earlier about the contradictions in civilization and this is a big one.
>People for the most part are uncomfortable with extremes of inequality yet
>they also want to feel special and unique. A successful civilization is
>one that can juggle these mutually incompatible goals.




It is very understandable to have anger and hatred toward someone who has caused so much harm. However, it is easy to love those who are nice to us. If we cannot love our enemies, then we still have some self-development to undertake. Universal love may sound absurd, but if one perceives the oneness of the Universe, the all-pervasive Brahman, then the whole issue is moot. To have love for one aspect of Brahman and not another aspect of Brahman is a contradiction, as Brahman is without division. While we may try and perform our social duties by trying to counter, even kill, enemies of dharma, we need not do this with hate and anger. In fact, Sri Krishna instructs Arjuna, that to kill without hatred is to act without being tainted by karma. Holding onto hatred will be an obstacle to one’s spiritual development.

In BG 12:13 Sri Krishna describes the attributes necessary to attain the perception of oneness of the universe– “He hates no beings, is friendly and compassionate; he is rid of all sense of possession and of egoism; he is the same in pleasure and pain and is long-suffering.”

Hate is the seed of anger, and anger is one of the three gates to hell (kama, krodha, lobha).

Once again, I refer back to stories in our tradition. Jayan and Vijayan were two guards at Vaikunta where Narayana was residing. A dirty ascetic (Brahmin) came asking for Narayana to grant him audience. The guards scolded him for coming to see Naryana in such an unkempt manner. The Brahmin took offense and cursed the two to be far away from Vaikunta since they were keeping him away from Narayana. Jayan and Vijayan ran to Narayan for protection. He said to them, I cannot void the curse of a Brahmin, but I can modify it. So, you can live as a cultured human for many lifetimes and then return to Me, or you can live as a rakhsasa for only a few lifetimes and return to Me sooner. The two immediately chose to live as rakshasas and return sooner. One of those “rakshasas” is none other than Ravana in the Ramayana. So, while Ravana’s body may need to be killed to protect dharma, his Atman actually belongs in Vaikunta with Narayana. The point being here that we cannot not know for what purpose each Atman came to this humanly form. It may sound absurd, but if one does not practice universal love (for the inner Atman), then one is far from Vaikunta indeed.

What may seem stupid, is the only path to cultivating divinity within oneself. We must perform our social duties, but we must not allow ourselves to harbor hate, for any being.




_______________________________________

The journey of a thousand miles begins
with a single step.--Chinese Proverb

_______________________________________


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
--0-577775045-1046911977=:77930
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>1. What are the "times"? For many shastras we don't exactly when they<BR>>were composed or in what millieu. How do we know "the times" have<BR>>changed? For instance I live in America where most people eat meat.<BR>>Should I start eating meat too becuase that is what everyone else does?<BR>>Or convert to Christianity becuase my minority religion is just a cultural<BR>>bias?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">We may not be able to accurately date the shastras, but we do know that they are not in our time., and can safely say that they were composed much before us. How do we know the times have changed? Well, since there seems to be much emphasis on referring to those shastras, then even in the shastras it states that time is changing, and what is appropriate for one yuga is not necessarily appropriate for another yuga, and that even within a yuga there is progressive deterioration of dharma. As for eating meat, nowhere is it forbidden for all to eat meat -- only for Brahmins. In fact, for a Kshatriya warrier, it is encouraged to eat meat. The point is not wether or not you should eat meat based on your cultural surroundings, but rather, as was quoted on this discussion group some time back, "Better a man who eats pork and thinks of God than one who abstains from eating meat and does not think of God." Cleearly, what is more important is the cultivation of divinity within one's heart, not the outward actions. In fact, if one looks at the “evolution” of shruti, one sees that the reason the Upanishads came into being was that the ritualistic aspect of the Vedas was being mispraciced by the people as perfunctory rites. So, the Upanishads, which are supposedly a condensation of the Vedas, remind us that the intent and knowledge behind the yajna is more important than the physical act. Furthermore, an act done in a sacrifice without the awareness of Brahman being the sacrifice, is not Vedanta – it’s just propitiating a specific deity for a specific reward. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>2. You say Shruti should be considered infallible. What will you do if<BR>>objectionable statements are found there? Maharshi Yajnavalkyas'<BR>>teachings are mentioned in the Upanishads. There is also a popular and<BR>>influential dharmashastra called Yajnavalkyasmrti. Why should some of his<BR>>words be considered infallible and others fallible? Actually Hinduism<BR>>doesn't have the concept of infallibility of scripture as some other<BR>>religions do.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I agree with you... I was merely pointing out that some scriptures are considered to have more weight than others. Clearly, the shruti texts have the greatest weight among the scriptures. Since you brought it up, I have also read (can't remember the citation at present) that the greatest authority for wisdom is one's own experience. One should never accept something which does not correspond to one's exerience. The emphasis in Hiduism, especially Vedanta, has been "experience" (i.e, to practice cultivating that perception of the oneness of the universe). Once again, the point is not what is "infallible", but which carries more weight. If something is found objectionable in a shastra, one should be able to use one's own intellect, with reference to shruti texts, to completely disregard any objectionable statements. I do not have any suggestions about what one should do if one finds something objetionable in a shruti text... The Upanishads are considered shruti, right? Many statements in one ostensibly contradict statements in another. Paradox is inherent in the shruti texts, precisely because the subject is too complex for our most uncultivated minds (as most human beings are) to comprehend. <BR><BR>>> Thus, women and low-caste memebrs being excluded from spiritual<BR>>> teachings is absurd.<BR><BR>>Ah but the issue is whether they are allowed to learn the Vedas. The<BR>>Vedas are only part of the spiritual teachings of Advaita Vedanta so it<BR>>does not follow that exclusion from the Vedas is exclusion altogether.<BR>>But even if it were the case, from the Advaita point of view it would not<BR>>matter at all. Brahman pervade all. A rock or tree is also Brahman but<BR>>it cannot know it because it has no power of self-reflection. People on<BR>>the other hand even people who have never studied the Vedas do have that<BR>>capacity.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I am sorry for this. As I said, I had not been reading all the postings, so I didn’t realize that the topic was whether or not they should have access to the Vedas. However, my argument still holds. One can probably find any argument to support the view in one's heart. I don't have the exact reference, but in the Upanishads (Chandogya?) there is a story about a boy who comes to a Brahmin for teaching. The guru asks him about his lineage. The boy replies: my mother is a prostitute, and hence I do no know who my father is. The guru accepts the boy as a student, saying, truly you must be a Brahmin for only a Brahmin would practice such adherence to truth without regard to shame. So, if only Brahmins (or other dvijas) should have access to the Vedas, then clearly who is a “Brahmin” is determined more by one’s svabhava (inner, true nature) than one’s outer body, which is discarded anyway.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN><BR>>> I<BR>>> believe on this website, it states that all commentators on Advaita<BR>>> Vedanta make their name by commenting on some canonical works (e.g.,<BR>>> Bhagavad Gita, BrahmaSutra, etc.).<BR><BR>>But note of those three, the Gita (part of the Mahabharata) and<BR>>Brahmasutras are the product of "fallible" human authors. :)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Yes, this was brought to my attention last time also (i.e., that the Gita is actually a smriti text). While that may be technically correct, I don’t think such classification is appropriate in the Hindu tradition. First, the Gita is only part of the Mahabharata from a literary standpoint, not a spiritual standpoint. What I mean by this is that there are many (hundreds?) recensions of the epics (both the Mahabharata and Ramayana). However, there is only 1 Gita, without any recensions. Through the centuries all 700 verses come down to us without even one syllable being changed. How could this happen if this “portion” of the Mahabharata did not carry more authority and value than other smriti texts? Now before anyone points out to me that some place 701 verses in the Gita, I am aware of this. But even this additional verse is consistent in that if it appears anywhere, it appears in the same form.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>No such consistency can be found with the epics or nonshruti texts.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">As for the Brahmasutra, I do not have any knowledge of what weight it carries in the tradition. I was under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that the sutras carry more weight than the shastras.<BR><BR>>> So, here I refer to BG 5:18, and I<BR>>> quote from Adi Shankaracharya's commentary "Bhagavadgita Bhasya": "The<BR>>> sages perceive the same truth in the Brahmana, rich in knowledge and<BR>>> culture, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eating outcaste." BG 5:18<BR>>> Shankara's commentary: "In the saatvika brahmana, endowed with knowledge<BR>>> ad culture, who has the best latent imporession of life's experiences,<BR>>> inanintermediate being like the cow that is rajasic without such<BR>>> impression, and in the low merely tamasic beings like anelephant etc,<BR>>> the sages are trained to perceive the same, single, and immutable<BR>>> Brahman, wholly unaffected by constituents like the sattva and by the<BR>>> latent impression they generate." Furthermore, Shankaracharya<BR>>> anticipates the objection: "Now, is not the food offered by such tained<BR>>> indivuduals forbidden? Vide, the smriti: 'The food should not be<BR>>> accepted from him who invidiously treats equals as unequals and unequals<BR>>> as eqals' GDS. Answer: 'No, the are not tainted. How?' " [going on to BG<BR>>> 5:19 for further explanation] Furthermore, in BG 18:30-32, Sri Krishna<BR>>> says that that intellect is rajasic [not as pure as sattvic] which<BR>>> erroneously understands righteousness and unreighteousness, duty and<BR>>> non-dute. Adi Shankaracharya explains in his commentary that the<BR>>> righteousness here refers to those actions enjoined by the shastras and<BR>>> unrighteousness referes to those actions forbidden by the shastras.<BR>>> Clearly, the lesson here is to rise above such shastric morals and focus<BR>>> more on the universal, all-pervading divinity.<BR><BR>>The message here as Shankaracharya intends it is to take sannyasa. Only<BR>>the one who has renounced the world can rise above Shastric morals. Those<BR>>of us in this world however are the type who have non-duties and duties<BR>>etc. It is illegitimate for such people to use Vedantic notions as an<BR>>excuse to shirk the dictates of the shastras.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Yes, this can be debated on both sides. Perhaps we are splitting hairs. The message of the Gita and the Upanishads is to place a greater emphasis on knowledge and “perception of oneness” than on ritualistic duty. I brought this up from the perspective of debating the shastras. The Upanishads and the Gita do seem to place greater emphasis on knowledge and meditation and true sanyas (true sanyas in the Gita not being used to describe an ascetic but rather one who gives up attachment in the heart/mind) than on physical ritual.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">BG 12:12 “Knowledge is superior to repeated efforts; superior to knowledge is meditation. Renunciation of the fruits of works is superior to meditation. Of this renunciation is peace born, immediately.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">If others find it valuable to debate the shastric injunctions, then I apologize for my interjection. I thought the purpose of this discussion group was Vedanta, and the shastras certainly do have a place, but I don’t think that they are regarded as highly in the Vedantic tradition as the Upanishads and the Gita, and certainly not the Vedas.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>> Near the end of the BG<BR>>> (18:67-71), Sri Krishna says that "this" (i.e, BG) should not be taught<BR>>> to a non-ascetic, a non-devotee, a person who does not seek it, or a<BR>>> person who reviles Him. Note, that there is no mention of caste or<BR>>> gender. Sri Krishna states that A N Y O N E who teaches the BG (to<BR>>> devotees), or who studies this righteous dialogue, or who listens to it,<BR>>> will have offered Him the knowledge sacrifice, which earlier He states<BR>>> is among the highest of sacrifices.<BR><BR>>And this is the key to the dilemna. Those who are barred from the Vedas<BR>>can still know the way to liberation through the Gita and other Smrtis<BR>>which deal with adhyatmic topics. And their goal if they reach it will be<BR>>the same as one who has mastered all four Vedas.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Once again I refer to the story from the Upanishads about a true Brahmin being one whose character demonstrates his/her worthiness to learn scripture, not one’s birth body.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><BR><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">>> I do hope that we can focus more on the spirit of the all-pervasive<BR>>> Brahman and how to achieve that realization... the ritualistic practices<BR>>> enjoined by the Shastras often times serve to be more divisive rather<BR>>> than cultivating universal love.<BR><BR>>Now I am about to say something that might sound quite cynical but here<BR>>goes: universal love is a stupid idea.<BR><BR>>Take Osama bin Laden. Quite frankly I hate him for what he almost did to<BR>>my family. Thankfully so do many other people so we may soon be rid of<BR>>him but do you really think it would be a good idea to love him? You can<BR>>argue that the present course of action being taken against him is not the<BR>>best or that hating him should not lead to hating all Muslims and these<BR>>are valid points but are still not the same as universal love. I wrote<BR>>earlier about the contradictions in civilization and this is a big one.<BR>>People for the most part are uncomfortable with extremes of inequality yet<BR>>they also want to feel special and unique. A successful civilization is<BR>>one that can juggle these mutually incompatible goals.<BR><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">It is very understandable to have anger and hatred toward someone who has caused so much harm. However, it is easy to love those who are nice to us. If we cannot love our enemies, then we still have some self-development to undertake. Universal love may sound absurd, but if one perceives the oneness of the Universe, the all-pervasive Brahman, then the whole issue is moot. To have love for one aspect of Brahman and not another aspect of Brahman is a contradiction, as Brahman is without division. While we may try and perform our social duties by trying to counter, even kill, enemies of dharma, we need not do this with hate and anger. In fact, Sri Krishna instructs Arjuna, that to kill without hatred is to act without being tainted by karma. Holding onto hatred will be an obstacle to one’s spiritual development.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In BG 12:13 Sri Krishna describes the attributes necessary to attain the perception of oneness of the universe– “He hates no beings, is friendly and compassionate; he is rid of all sense of possession and of egoism; he is the same in pleasure and pain and is long-suffering.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Hate is the seed of anger, and anger is one of the three gates to hell (kama, krodha, lobha).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Once again, I refer back to stories in our tradition. Jayan and Vijayan were two guards at Vaikunta where Narayana was residing. A dirty ascetic (Brahmin) came asking for Narayana to grant him audience. The guards scolded him for coming to see Naryana in such an unkempt manner. The Brahmin took offense and cursed the two to be far away from Vaikunta since they were keeping him away from Narayana. Jayan and Vijayan ran to Narayan for protection. He said to them, I cannot void the curse of a Brahmin, but I can modify it. So, you can live as a cultured human for many lifetimes and then return to Me, or you can live as a rakhsasa for only a few lifetimes and return to Me sooner. The two immediately chose to live as rakshasas and return sooner. One of those “rakshasas” is none other than Ravana in the Ramayana. So, while Ravana’s body may need to be killed to protect dharma, his Atman actually belongs in Vaikunta with Narayana. The point being here that we cannot not know for what purpose each Atman came to this humanly form. It may sound absurd, but if one does not practice universal love (for the inner Atman), then one is far from Vaikunta indeed. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">What may seem stupid, is the only path to cultivating divinity within oneself. We must perform our social duties, but we must not allow ourselves to harbor hate, for any being.</SPAN></P>
<P> </P><BR><BR>_______________________________________<br><br>The journey of a thousand miles begins<br>with a single step.--Chinese Proverb<br><br>_______________________________________<p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Tax Center</a> - forms, calculators, tips, and more
--0-577775045-1046911977=:77930--