[Advaita-l] Animal sacrifice

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

On 1/9/06, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:
>
> > On 1/7/06, Sanjay Srivastava <sksrivastava68 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> No. Only nitya and naimittik karmas are compulsory. Others such as
> >> animal sacrifice yajna are for gaining some special results such as
> >> going to heaven or getting a son etc. Only they have to perform these
> >> sacrifices who are looking for such special goals.
> >>
> >> An advaitin has to get over the need of animal sacrifices just like
> >> other kAmya karmas. This is a part of developing requisite sAdhana
> >> chatushTaya. However this avoidance has nothing to do with something
> >> intrinsically wrong with animal sacrifice since animal sacrifice is at
> >> par with other kAmya karmas sanctioned by vedas. Rather it is due to
> >> the intrinsic nature of all kAmya karmas since all kAmya karmas
> >> strengthen bondage
> >
> > What you state above has been stated as a puurva-paxa by Sankara and
> > refuted in his bR^ihad bhaaShya.
> >
> > He states the entire veda has the subject matter as brahman. The
> > karma-kANDa largely teaches it indirectly (rites and meditation) and
> > hence is for mind purification *if done without any desire in mind*.
> > The upaniShads are about meditation (e.g, about vyAhR^itis) which
> > indirectly teach brahman, and direct j~naana (neti neti, etc).
> >
> > Both kANDas have only brahman as content, though in a different way.
> >
>
> This doesn't sound right to me (atleast in relationship to kamya karmas.)
> Where in the brhadaranyakopanishadbhashya are you refering to?
>
> > Sureshvara, in his vaartika, explicitly mentions the theory that
> > kaamaya karmas should be given up and refutes it. They should actually
> > be done without desire.
>
> Are you referring to what he calls kamavilayavada?  That's different.  The
> proponents of that theory want to enjoy karma for the express purpose of
> giving it up later because, they think, the more you give up, the greater
> the effect of its' renunciation.  This is wrong because jnana cannot
> depend on doing any amount of karma.

No. That's not what I am talking about. That's quite different. I
don't remember the verses offhand. I'll have to hunt for them. But I
believe it's the sambandha vaartika where the kaamavilayavaada is also
refuted (in some other place). The topic under discussion is what is
the connection between the puurva and uttara bhaagams of the shruti,
which has no connection with kaamavilayavaada.  Sureshvara also refers
to the fact that Sankara takes this topic up for discussion in a later
part of the bhaashya (which is only obliquely refererred to in the
upodghaata).  Will post when I get the chance.

I was under the impression karmas will give results no matter what,
till I read mahaasannidhaanams explanation that the desire has to be
present. Then of course I read the bhaaShyams more carefully and
shankara bluntly ridicules the apuurva theory of the miimaamsakas in
the suutra bhaaShya, which is essential for the theory "karma will
give results no matter what". I also came across those verses in the
vaartika.

Rama