[Advaita-l] vedic yajna
svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Sun Dec 4 09:47:15 CST 2011
My absolute last contribution to this thread.
> Namaste Sri Sarma and Sri Vidyasankara
> You have got the wrong picture of this discussion thread.
> The simple point I have made is forget what Rishis did in the ancient
> times but follow Smrutis like Parashara Smruti meant for Kali Yuga.
> Sri Sriram gave a reference for beef prohibition from this Parashara
> Smruti. The people arguing with me say Sruti Vakya meaning will be the
> same in all Yugas and we have to take the direct meaning. I am saying
> we have to do revision of Sruti Vakya meaning depending on our
Thank you for stating this so clearly and explicitly. It proves that I have
very accurately depicted your views throughout. Now, please go to Sri
Mani Dravid Sastri, or to Swami Raghaveshwara Bharati or to Jagadguru
Sankaracharya Swami at Sringeri, Swami Bharati Tirtha, and ask themif they agree that "we
have to do revision of Sruti Vakya..."
My point is very simple - You cannot have a sliding scale and a moving
point of reference, if you are to have any sort of clarity on anything. In
matters relating to dharma,
> In Mahabharata this principle of changing Dharma is told. In very very
> ancient times there was not a marraige concept. Any man was going with
> any woman. This was the Dharma this was the Achara. But one Rishi's
> son named Swetaketu saw his mother going with some other man. He
> became angry and established the present practice a woman should be
> devoted to the husband. Read the story below and answer my question
> below. It says how ancient practice can be changed by great Rishis.
> What the Rishis say becomes Dharma from that time onwards.
> (Sambhava Parva continued)
> 'But I shall now tell thee about the practices of
> old indicated by illustrious Rishis, fully acquainted with every rule of
> morality. O thou of handsome face and sweet smiles, women formerly were
> not immured within houses and dependent on husbands and other relatives.
> They used to go about freely, enjoying themselves as best as they liked.
> O thou of excellent qualities, they did not then adhere to their husbands
> faithfully, and yet, O handsome one, they were not regarded sinful, for
> that was the sanctioned usage of the times. That very usage is followed
> to this day by birds and beasts without any (exhibition of) jealousy.
> That practice, sanctioned by precedent, is applauded by great Rishis. O
> thou of taper thighs, the practice is yet regarded with respect amongst
> the Northern Kurus. Indeed, that usage, so lenient to women, hath the
> sanction of antiquity. The present practice, however (of women's being
> confined to one husband for life) hath been established but lately. I
> shall tell thee in detail who established it and why.'
> "It hath been heard by us that there was a great Rishi of the name of
> Uddalaka, who had a son named Swetaketu who also was an ascetic of merit.
> O thou of eyes like lotus-petals, the present virtuous practice hath been
> established by that Swetaketu from anger. Hear thou the reason. One day,
> in the presence of Swetaketu's father a Brahmana came and catching
> Swetaketu's mother by the hand, told her, 'Let us go.' Beholding his
> mother seized by the hand and taken away apparently by force, the son was
> greatly moved by wrath. Seeing his son indignant, Uddalaka addressed him
> and said, 'Be not angry. O son! This is the practice sanctioned by
> antiquity. The women of all orders in this world are free, O son; men in
> this matter, as regards their respective orders, act as kine.' The
> Rishi's son, Swetaketu, however, disapproved of the usage and established
> in the world the present practice as regards men and women. It hath been
> heard by us, O thou of great virtue, that the existing practice dates
> from that period among human beings but not among beings of other
> classes. Accordingly, since the establishment of the present usage, it is
> sinful for women not to adhere to their husbands. Women transgressing the
> limits assigned by the Rishi became guilty of slaying the embryo. And,
> men, too, viol ting a chaste and loving wife who hath from her maidenhood
> observed the vow of purity, became guilty of the same sin. The woman also
> who, being commanded by her husband to raise offspring, refuses to do his
> bidding, becometh equally sinful.'
> Question- Now you have seen how Dharma changes by Rishis. Do we not
> follow the above Rishi's rule today? Do we say in ancient times ladies
> were very free to go with any man let them do the same now also?
> Similarly, Parashara has said Beef is prohibited in Kali Yuga should
> we not follow the rule? We should not refer ancient customs and follow
> them today.
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan
> <svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 2011/12/4 D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ <dvnsarma at gmail.com>:
> > This thread does not have a chance of ending. Even in the face all the
> > evidence
> > that vadic rishis were meat eaters ( including beef) and did animal
> > sacrifices,
> > they will go on insisting that it is not so. Sometimes they see there are
> > conspiracies out to malign their extraordinarily pure(!?) and hygienic
> > religion.
> > (Every one of these has his own conception what that pure hindu religion
> > is.)
> > While the popular culprits are western indologists, lately even the hindu
> > skeptics
> > are severely condemned as polluted with western ideas and
> > psuedointellectualism.
> > --
> > regards,
> > Sarma.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list