[Advaita-l] vedic yajna
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Fri Dec 2 21:22:38 CST 2011
This discussion has gone off in multiple directions responding to all
which will further defeat the purpose of my starting it to find out
the specific ritual referred to in Br Up verses. I'm planning to ask a
learned sastrigal or srautigal. But if anyone knows, please share the
name of the ritual. It does not seem to be putra kameshti.
On 03/12/2011, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The named Sistas will not ask anybody with any qualification like
>> knowing Vedas with desire to have learned son to eat Beef under any
> Again, you misunderstand and misrepresent my position. You and Rajaram
> are allowing your emotional reactions against beef eating to cloud the way
> you think about SAstra and SishTAcAra. And I am not saying that SishTa-s
> will actively go ahead and promote the eating of beef. They could counsel,
> for instance, in this particular case, that one does not have to do exactly
> as specified in the upanishad because it will be misunderstood by others
> in society (yad yad Acarati SreshThaH ...). This does not mean that they
> would consider it a sin the way you do and it does not mean that they will
> sanction some arbitrary substitution instead either. They will also not
> with you, if you state that the meaning of a Sruti vAkya is to be modified
> as per deSa and kAla. There are well established reasons for when to take
> a direct meaning and when to go for an indirect meaning in such cases.
> When SankarAcArya gives you the direct meaning of a Sruti vAkya in his
> bhAshya, you have very flimsy grounds to insist upon an indirect meaning.
> Ask the SishTa-s a specific question, even if it is only a theoretical one
> this day and age. If a man who meets all the adhikAra requirements they
> can think of were to have this desire, hypothetically speaking, for a son as
> specified in the upanishad, and if he were to act exactly as specified in
> upanishad, should the hypothetical eating of the meat of ukshA/Rshabha
> by him and his wife be considered a sin? If yes, why? Further, is living in
> kaliyuga an automatic and universal disqualification in terms of adhikAra?
> If yes, why?
> Please be prepared to hear from the SishTa-s that the situation is not as
> you think, for the simple reason that by default, the veda never promotes
> adharma, at any deSa or in any kAla.
> As for me, I am open to the possibility that someone as highly learned,
> qualified and venerable as the Sringeri Acharya could tell me that I am
> wrong. It would be a blessing for me to receive SikshA on any issue from
> such respected SishTa-s and I would be willing to be corrected and most
> interested in learning exactly where I have gone wrong in the arguments
> that I've laid out over the last two weeks of this debate.
>> In the case of Bull meat Sruti may be saying if you have such and such
>> qualification and such and such desire to have learned son and such
>> and such conditions are satisfied you should eat Bull meat with rice
>> and other ingredients. But Nirnaya Sindhu is saying don't eat Beef
>> under any circumstances irrespective of who you are your
>> qualifications, desires, and any conditions.
> Is it making a well-meaning recommendation or is it issuing a blanket and
> general prohibition, irrespective of the context of vaidika ritual?
>> You are looking at Sruti
>> Vakya and finding escape exit saying if I don't have the desire I
>> don't have to eat Bull meat. I will not eat it. But I am saying
>> looking at Nirnaya Sindhu I will not eat Beef. The result for both is
>> the same for this case but the reason given is different. It is
>> strange we have to find escape exit when important books like Nirnaya
>> Sindhu are available to help.
> This is not an escape exit, but merely a restatement in English of the
> Sanskrit words of the upanishad. If you don't have the specific icchA
> as described in the upanishad, the question does not arise in the first
> place and you don't even have to open the nirNayasindhu. A kAmya
> karmA sanctioned in the veda presumes a kAma on the part of the
> kartA. The specific adhikAra of the kartA to do that particular karmA
> is always there in the background. The veda does not enjoin these
> acts upon anybody and everybody in a general sense. e.g. Not every
> king can do an aSvamedha or a rAjasUya yajna. Not every brAhmaNa
> can be a somayAjI or a vAjapeyI. And given that this is an advaita
> vedAnta list, let me add that advaita vedAnta reminds you that behind
> karmA, there is kAma, and behind kAma, there is avidyA.
> Since you are desperately tyring to be very, very simplistic, let me try
> and simplify things. Below, smRti refers to itihAsa, purANa, dharma-
> SAstra etc.
> If Sruti explicitly enjoins action X upon all people, smRti CANNOT go
> ahead and prohibit it, period.
> If Sruti is silent about action X, smRti can enjoin it, so long as it does
> not contradict something else already known from Sruti.
> If Sruti prohibits action X, in a general sense or in specific instances,
> smRti cannot enjoin it otherwise, in contravention of Sruti.
> If a given smRti fails in any one or more of the above cases, it has to
> be set aside by vaidika SishTa-s. If you think that a smRti accepted by
> SishTa-s does anything of the sort, then your understanding of the
> Sruti, smRti and the SishTAcAra are all wrong.
> If Sruti enjoins action X and says nothing else, smRti can be a source
> for learning about the restrictions on when action X is to be performed,
> by whom, for what reason, how it should be done, how it should not
> be done etc. In technical terms, if Sruti provides an apUrva vidhi, and
> nothing else, smRti can provide associated niyama or parisaMkhyA or
> adhikAra vidhi-s etc. It cannot simply prohibit action X, in direct
> contravention of Sruti.
> If Sruti enjoins action X upon certain persons, provided certain conditions
> are met, i.e. if Sruti provides the apUrva vidhi and also one or more of
> niyama, parisaMkhyA and adhikAra vidhi-s, smRti CAN further expand on
> what those conditions are. In order to cover instances when the specified
> conditions are NOT met, smRti can also enjoin something else, or specify
> yet other restrictions, etc. Anything said by smRti in these cases should be
> such that it does not contradict something else already known from Sruti.
> Also, smRti cannot impose a blanket prohibition of action X, irrespective
> of whether the Sruti specified conditions are satisfied or not, in direct
> contravention of what the Sruti says about it.
> In both cases above, where Sruti and smRti both say something about a
> particular course of action, so long as the additional information supplied
> by smRti does not directly contradict something else that is already known
> in Sruti, the standard mImAMsA stance is that the smRti is based upon
> some unknown Sruti that we have lost today.
> Finally, if there appears to a contradiction between two things within
> or between two things in smRti, then we have to find another explanation
> that removes the apparent contradiction, or if no such alternate explanation
> is possible, then there is an option (vikalpa) available to the kartA. This
> is a
> very special case and I only mention it because a few references to this
> been made recently on this list, in the sentences quoted in the sUtrabhAshya
> "atirAtre shoDaSinaM gRhNAti; nAtirAtre shoDaSinaM gRhNAti."
> Try to work out what these principles mean for the issue that bothers you
> so much about the bRhadAraNyaka passages in question.
>> > What is the point of desiring that one's son should be a
>> > trivedi or caturvedi and highly respected in society, if one can't
>> > regulate
>> > one's own anger and other desires? This particular passage is not to be
>> > taken lightly at all.
>> Above point applies in this case also. Why take escape exit? There is
>> a direct way. Respect the law of the country.
> Please. A husband and wife do not need the law of the country to teach
> them how to deal with each other. Whatever the law says in any country,
> it does not prevent people from doing what they please. It only provides
> punishments and legal processes after the event, and even then, only if
> it is reported, investigated and proved in a court of law.
> And from a point of view of personal morals, religion and rituals that a
> married couple operates with, if they have any affinity at all to leading
> dhArmika lives, I would hope that the values they attach to Sama, dama,
> titikshA etc. would step in long before the law of their country has to
> interfere in their private lives.
>> But what is position of Dharma Sastra books like Nirnaya Sindhu in
>> your opinion? You think they cannot prohibit things not prohibited by
>> Sruti? Kindly answer this.
> Covered in the cases enumerated above. However, note that you claim
> that the nirNayasindhu issues a generic prohibition against something
> that is allowed in a certain specific situation by the veda. I suggest to
> you, nay I assert very forcefully, that nirNayasindhu does nothing of the
> kind and that your understanding of it all is quite skewed.
> That will be the last I will post on this thread. I have continued with this
> discussion for so long, possibly to the annoyance of many list members,
> but only because of the principles of interpretation involved therein. A lot
> of these mImAMsA principles have direct application in how SankarAcArya
> and other advaitins after him interpret the upanishad-s too, and that is
> the only relevance this has to the list.
> Finally, an admin note: Keep personal opinions, blog entries, websites
> etc relating to Gandhiji, Indian independence and Partition out of this
> Br. Pranipata Chaitanya mentioned his name only as a short response to
> other comments about law and dharma. This passing mention does not
> have to grow and become a topic of discussion here.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
Sent from my mobile device
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list