Author Topic: Rough Notebook-Open Forum  (Read 342747 times)

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4051
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #900 on: May 31, 2014, 05:17:38 PM »
Subramanian,

Quote
I have only one doubt, not in this connection.  He has said that when animal sacrifices were done in the Yagnas, the brahmin priests used to take a bit of roasted animal flesh, to the size of a moong dhal.

I remember having read this.i will try to dig this out.This is a controversial subject and it requires tremendous faith in the sastras and the wisdom of The Vedas to understand this and accept it for what it is.

In all these matters,I also look up to The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna,for what the Master has to say on this:

ADHAR (to the Master): "Sir, I have a question to ask. Is it good to sacrifice animals before the Deity? It certainly involves killing."

MASTER: "The sastra prescribes sacrifice on special occasions. Such sacrifice is not harmful. Take, for instance, the sacrifice of a goat on the eighth day of the full or new moon.I am now in such a state of mind that I cannot watch a sacrifice. Also I cannot eat meat offered to the Divine Mother. Therefore I first touch my finger to it, then to my head, lest She should be angry with me.
Again, in a certain state of mind I see God in all beings, even in an ant. At that time, if I see a living being die, I find consolation in the thought that it is the death of the body, the soul being beyond life and death.
One should not reason too much; it is enough if one loves the Lotus Feet of the Mother. Too much reasoning throws the mind into confusion. You get clear water if you drink from the surface of a pool. Put your hand deeper and stir the water, and it becomes muddy. Therefore pray to God for devotion.

I will post excerpt from kAnchi mahAswAmi's talk on 'Sacrifice' that corroborates what Sri Ramakrishna has said.
Namaskar.

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4051
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #901 on: May 31, 2014, 05:29:29 PM »
Subramanian/Friends,
Here is an Excerpt from the Talk of kAnchi mahAswAmi on Animal Sacrifice-Is Sacrificial Killing Justified?

A yaga or sacrifice takes shape with the chanting of the mantras, the invoking of the deity and the offering of havis (oblation). The mantras are chanted (orally) and the deity is meditated upon (mentally). The most important material required for homa is the havis offered in the sacrificial fire - in this "work" the body is involved. So, altogether, in a sacrificial offering mind, speech and body (mano-vak-kaya) are brought together. Ghee (clarified butter) is an important ingredient of the oblation. While ghee by itself is offered as an oblation, it is also used to purify other sacrificial materials - in fact this is obligatory.

In a number of sacrifices the vapa(fat or marrow) of animals is offered. Is the performance of a sacrifice sinful, or is it meritorius? Or is it both?

Madvacharya was against the killing of any pasu for a sacrifice. In his compassion he said that a substitute for the vapa must be made with flour and offered in the fire. ("Pasu" does not necessarily mean a cow. In Sanskrit any animal is called a "pasu".)
In his Brahmasutra, Vyasa has expounded the nature of the Atman as found expressed in the Upanishads which constitute the jnanakanda of the Vedas. The actual conduct of sacrifices is dealt with in the Purvamimamsa which is the karmakanda of the Vedas. The true purpose of sacrifices is explained in the Uttaramimamsa, that is the jnanakanda.
What is this purposse or goal? It is the cleansing of the consciousness and such cleansing is essential to lead a man to the path of jnana.
The Brahmasutra says: "Asuddhamiti cen na sabdat". The performance of sacrifices is based on scriptural authority and it is part of the quest for Self realisation. So how can it be called an impure act? How do we determine whether or not an object or an act is impure or whether it is good or bad? We do so by judging it according to the authority of of the Hindu Dharma sastras. Vyasa goes on to state in his Brahmasutra that animal sacrifice is not sinful since the act is permeated by the sound of the Vedas. What is pure or impure is to be known by the authority provided by the Vedas or rather their sound called Sabdapramana. If sacrifices were impure acts
according to the Vedas, they would not have accepted them as part of the Atmic quest
. Even if the sacrificial animal is made of flour (the substitute according to Madhvacharya) it is imbued with life by the chanting of the Vedic mantras. Would it not then be like a living animal and would not offering it in a sacrifice be taken as an act of violence?

Tiruvalluvar says in his Tirukkural that not to kill an animal and eat it is better than performing a thousand sacrifices in which the oblation is consigned to the fire. You should not take this to mean that the poet speaks ill of sacrifices.What is in accordance or in pursuance of dharma must be practised howsoever or whatsoever it be. Here questions of violence must be disregarded. The Tirukkural says that it is better not to kill an animal than perform a thousand sacrifices. From this statement it is made out that Tiruvalluvar condemns sacrifices. According to Manu himself conducting one asvamedha (horse sacrifice) is superior to performing a thousand other sacrifices. At the same time, he declares that higher than a thousand horse sacrifices is the fact of one truth. If we say that one thing is better than another, the implication is that both are good. If the performance of a sacrifice were sinful, would it be claimed that one meritorious act is superior to a thousand sinful deeds? You may state that fasting on one Sivaratri is superior to fasting on a hundred Ekadasis. But would you say that the same is better than running a hundred butcheries? When you remark that "this rite is better than that rite or another", it means that the comparison is among two or more meritorious observances.

continued...

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5130
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #902 on: May 31, 2014, 05:35:27 PM »
Quote
I have only one doubt, not in this connection.  He has said that when animal sacrifices were done in the Yagnas, the brahmin priests used to take a bit of roasted animal flesh, to the size of a moong dhal.

I am urged to express my little thought in the above regard.

What the Animal Sacrifice really meant in the scriptures is the sacrifice of Pashutvam, the animal instinct within everyone, the monster within everyone -  that has to be sacrificed. This is the true import of the sacrifice. One has to offer ones vices into the sacred fire of Agni, the fire of knowledge and discrimination.

--
॥ शांतमात्मनि तिष्ट ॥
Remain quietly in the Self.
~ Vasishta

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4051
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #903 on: May 31, 2014, 05:36:37 PM »
Is Sacrificial Killing Justified?-By Sri kAnchi mahAswAmi continued...

In the concluding passage of the Chandogya Upanishad where ahimsa or non-violence is extolled you find these words, "Anyatra tirthebhyah". It means ahimsa must be practised except with regard to Vedic rites. Considerations of violence have no place in sacrifices and the conduct of war.

If the ideal of non-violence were superior to the performance of sacrifices, it would mean that "sacrifices are good but non-violence is better". The performance of a thousand sacrifices must be spoken of highly but the practice of non-violence is to be regarded as even higher: It is in this sense that the Kural stanza concerning sacrifices is to be interpreted. We must not also forget that it occurs in the section on renunciation. What the poet wants to convey is that a sanyasin does better by abstaining from killing than a householder does by conducting a thousand sacrifices. According to the sastras also a sanyasin has no right to perform sacrifices.

There are several types of sacrifices. I shall speak about them later when I deal with "Kalpa" (an Anga or limb of the Vedas) aaand "Grihasthasrama" (the stage of the householder). What I wish to state here is that animals are not killed in all sacrifices. There are a number of yagnas in which only ghee (ajya) is offered in the fire. In some, havisyanna (rice mixed with ghee) is offered and in some the cooked grains called "caru" or "purodasa", a kind of baked cake. In agnihotri milk is poured into the fire;in aupasana unbroken rice grains (aksata) are used; and in samidadhana the sticks of the palasa (flame of the forest). In sacrifices in which the vapa of animals is offered, only a tiny bit of the remains of the burnt offering is partaken of - and of course in the form of prasada.

continued...

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4051
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #904 on: May 31, 2014, 05:55:03 PM »
Is Sacrificial Killing Justified?-By Sri kAnchi mahAswAmi continued...

One is enjoined to perform twenty-one sacrifices. These are of three types: pakayajna, haviryajna and somayajna. In each category there are seven subdivisions. In all the seven pakayajnas as well as in the first five haviryajnas there is no animal sacrifice. It is only from the sixth haviryajna onwards (it is called "nirudhapasubandha") that animals are sacrificed.

"Brahmins sacrificed herds and herds of animals and gorged themselves on their meat. The Buddha saved such herds when they were being taken to the sacrificial altar", -we often read such accounts in books. To tell the truth, there is no sacrifice in which a large number of animals are killed. For vajapeya which is the highest type of yajna performed by Brahmins, only twenty-three animals are mentioned. For asvamedha (horse sacrifice), the biggest of the sacrifices conducted by imperial rulers, one
hundred animals are mentioned.

It is totally false to state that Brahmins performed sacrifices only to satisfy their appetite for meat and that the talk of pleasing the deities was only a pretext. There are rules regarding the meat to be carved out from a sacrificial animal, the part of the body from which it is to be taken and the quantity each rtvik can partake of as prasada (idavatarana). This is not more than the size of a pigeon-pea and it is to be swallowed without anything added to taste. There may be various reasons for you to attack the system of sacrifices but it would be preposterous to do so on the score that Brahmins practised deception by making them a pretext to eat meat.

Nowadays a large number of animals are slaughtered in the laboratories as guinea-pigs. Animal sacrifices must be regarded as a little hurt caused in the cause of a great ideal, the welfare of mankind. As a matter of fact there is no hurt caused since the animal sacrificed attains to an elevated state.

As I have said,this is a subject that is sensitive and unintelligible to our human sensibility.The motive behind the act is more  important than the act itself.Ofcourse,every butcher in town will also take comfort in the thought that the animal killed attains to an elevated state!Yet,I trust the words of  sri kAnchi mahAswAmi and Sri Ramakrishna-and leave it at that.
Namaskar.

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5130
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #905 on: May 31, 2014, 06:12:31 PM »
Similarly, We have in Lalita Sahasranama,

Raktha varna Mamsa nishta - She who is of the colour of blood Mamsa nishta - She who is in flesh

People commonly understand it to be Mamsam-ishta - She who like Flesh, and therefore people took to sacrifice.

It is all play of words, it depends on the taker, a ripe sadhaka will always see the true essence whereas others will always have questions.

I am reminded about this wonderful story from Chandogya Upanishad. It illustrates, what is important is not whether something is right or wrong out there, but what we make out of it, that is important. In the ultimate sense, there is no one being killed or anyone who is killing, as Krishna says in the Gita. We have to let the Leela of the Lord play as it is and not judge or question the universal intelligence, as to why or how. There is no point to rationalise good or bad in the ultimate sense. This humbles one. Now, i share the story below:

"A Brahmin ascetic become cross with a good lady who delays giving him alms, because she has to attend on her husband's urgeut needs. But, unperturbed, she tells him: "Don't think you can burn me by your angry looks as you did the crane which soiled you with its droppings." Humbled by this remarkable power of second sight in a simple woman, he asks her to initiate him in the secrets of the Self. She directs him to a butcher in the city of King Janaka as the best teacher he could have. He goes to the "righteous hunter" unquestioningly and waits on his convenience. The butcher accosts him, ascertains his purpose, and deferentially takes him to his own home where he explains that his spiritual sadhana consists in loving service to his old parents. When the Brahman expresses surprise that one so advanced in spirituality should follow so brutal and disgusting an occupation, the butcher points out that absolute abstention from taking life, knowingly or unwittingly, is impossible, as all life lives upon other life. Even ascetics who make a vow of ahimsa cannot completely eschew himsa, all that they can do is to limit it to the barest limits possible." In this inescapable human predicament sishta aachara (conduct and observance of the wise) can alone be our guide."

-
॥ शांतमात्मनि तिष्ट ॥
Remain quietly in the Self.
~ Vasishta

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4051
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #906 on: May 31, 2014, 06:29:59 PM »
Nagaraj,
Thanks very much.Yes,the way of Dharma is quite subtle and cannot be circumscribed by human sensibilities.Your quote from the Gita is quite appropriate as also the story from The mahAbhArata.
Namaskar.

Jewell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6407
  • Love,always love and only love
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #907 on: May 31, 2014, 07:47:34 PM »
Dear Friends,

This is indeed one controverse subject. I must say,regarding the Vedas,that from that much i have read so far,i somehow accepted their autority,and i do trust them. From the reason these words have a great impact on me,and i simply feel there is a truth in them. Only,i think it is a bit difference in the Vedas itself,and their interpretation. So,regarding animal sacrfises,i never doubded Vedas,but the very people who actually performed them. Isn't Buddha came just to correct this error? And He did not denied Vedas coz of falsness,but coz of people who took it all wrong. I also read somewhere that these sakrfices are not ment for this age coz there is no enough compentent people to do it properlu. I forgot who wrote this,but i agree with it. It is other to recite a mantra,but anything which implies killing of a living being,and from,most propably,selfish reasons,must be done by most knowing person. I personaly would let only God Himself to do it. I would trust Bhagavan and Maharaj apso. But,the thing is,i never saw them bothering with such things.

I am now even convinced more. It is so hard to find good tranlations and interpretation of some Vedic books. It is easy not to read interpretation,but i then found some errors in translation itself. Coz of that very reason,i think that such things like animal sacrfices should be alltogether avoided.
There again,i do not doubd in Vedas,i can trust in anything which comes from God Himself.
And i agree that these Holy books,and the way of living they teaches should be preserve,so much coz it is a word of God,so much coz it is a symbol and tradition of one country.
But here again i cannot accept that these very things have anything to do with animal sacrfising and that subject. In some cases,i see more preserving ownes own view,than dharma actually.

So all this comes to the point of difference betwean good and bad,our unableness to discern what is what,or to understand Gods Mysterious ways. And i agree we indeed cannot know what is in ultimative sense good or bad.

All in all,i would not let anyone perform such sacrfices these days. And who needs them?!

There is nothing in the whole white world and beyond,more stronger and greater than Faith in God.



With love and prayers,

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4051
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #908 on: May 31, 2014, 09:30:46 PM »
Jewell/Friends,
In understanding the spirit behind the yajnyas and other sacrifices in the Vedas,we need to take cognizance of the fact that they are not just  meant for the select few who pursue the spiritual path of Realization alone.They are for the entire humanity,and for people who are in varied stages of life and different backgrounds.Thus we have the 4 so called purushArthAs-Four fold fruits of life-Dharma ,artha,kAma and Moksha.The Artha and the kama (Wealth and Desire)are also indispensable for the transition from animal through human to the Divine.The Vedic yanjyas are catering to this entire Gamut of people and what it aims is to give all these activities a certain measure of reigning in,a measure of control,a divinisation through these yajnyas-The way of Dharma suited to the people in all the stages.
This is one characteristic that differentiates the Vedic approach-in that it is pluralistic and allows all strata of people to develop along their own lines.Not everyone can practise Ahimsa.Not everyone can be expected to be vegetarians.Those who do eat non-vegetarian food ,like the warrior clan (the Kshatriyas) for example are the ones who do the ashwamedha Yajnyas and the like.They certainly are going to eat animal food and the vedas cover this aspect as well and have devised means to accommodate this aspect and to give it a spiritual turn as well.
On the other hand,the Brahmins who were the custodians of the Vedas were expected to lead an austere life of restraint,eschew all types of killing,and lead a contemplative life as well.
The Bhagavad Gita accommodates this wide spectrum of Humanity and it says that the dharma of one will be adharma for the other if arbitrarily imposed or adopted.The ways of dharma are very subtle.
Namaskar.

Jewell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6407
  • Love,always love and only love
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #909 on: June 01, 2014, 12:19:26 AM »
Dear Sri Ravi,

Yes,i understand.  I do agree on this what You have wrote about dharma. And i find all these divisions from Vedas,in a way of duty,way of life,caste sistem,all this has perfectly good sense to me. There must be some rules,guideliness,to show people how to live wisely and better.
What i believe is that these sacrfices,rituals,all these things are actually following of some natural ways,the ways of this Universe,so to say. Like some sorts of natural laws which when followed properly and respected,gives its results. Or we can take it that the one to whom our offering is made is happy and can give us desired. But i personaly cannot even imagine why is actually needed sacrfise of this tipw in the first place. I find it quite repulsive,this idea. Even more coz i doubd all these interpretations.
But that is just my opinion and feelings.

Anyway,i somehow feel all these things can be possible in some more satwic society,where people are more wise and good,where wise people can be trusted,and where we can actually know what is what. How to accept this when people today do not even know are they brahmins,sudras or else?! I mean in a true sense of that word,depending on inborn qualities of a man,not todays convinience. Even Vedas speak about this. That in this age all will be mixed and of low quality. Everything is upside down these days,people gone mad and evil,every possible value is twisted and ruined. How to apply a Royal code in a barbarian society of today's world? And most important,who will do it? Who will say what Sages truly ment,and would this man have autority needed. I believe only God can fix this.

I do not know,this is something i feel,and i do not see any good reason for this sacrfices today. I think it would be used and twisted like all else.

With love and prayers,

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4051
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #910 on: June 01, 2014, 07:02:10 AM »
Jewell,
I truly appreciate your openness.I understand your genuine doubts regarding the 'Sacrifice' and the present state of affairs where all things are sort of boiling in a cauldron,to borrow a phrase from Sri Aurobindo.
There are two options here:
1.To look outside and get bogged down and throw in the towel and call off any attempt at revival.
2.To turn to Great ones and follow what they have to say.
It is indeed true that for a spiritual aspirant,even chanting the divine name or pursuing the path of enquiry would do.He need not bother about preservation of vedas-This is one line of thought.
The other line of thought,is that this wonderful treasure has been preserved for ages and has been the Root and stem of all things that has been worthwhile-Is it not important that we handover to posterity this rare treasure?
We talk about preservation and conservation of Energy,Rare species of animals and birds,aborigines,etc,etc-Surely we need to contribute towards preservation of Vedas which are not just the treasure of Indians but the whole world;Nay not just this world but other worlds too.
I am sure that you appreciate this and you have already expressed this.
We have only began to scratch the surface regarding this vast and deep subject of Vedas.There is so much more to explore.I will try to cover a few basic topics in that thread on vedas.
I will be posting from Sri Aurobindo's marvellous revelation on the symbolism and philology of the Vedas.We may discuss more on this particular point later.
Namaskar



Hari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
    • View Profile
    • Fundamental questions about mind
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #911 on: June 01, 2014, 02:50:44 PM »
I also disagree with the sacrifice of animals. The only thing we must sacrifice is our desires, doubts, fears, etc. We don't need kill the animals for they to be reborn in higher form. The cow Lakshmi is certain example. As I have said before - this animal not only did not need to be reborn in higher form but she was actually liberated! Something which even we who consider ourselves as the highest living form do only dream of. I justify animal killing only for food when it is necessary, as with eskimos for example. Even the people of Iceland now have the opportunity to eat fruits and vegetables through the world trading. So globally today it is about choice if we will eat animal or not.
Web Page dedicated to the Great Sages:
https://someoneelsebg.000webhostapp.com/Sages/HTML.html

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4051
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #912 on: June 01, 2014, 03:41:02 PM »
Friends,
In every upanishad there will be a shanti mantra and this is chanted by the Guru and the Disciple before the lesson starts.Here is one such Shanti mantra from the beautiful site of our friends,silent green:

Om Saha Nau-Avatu |
Saha Nau Bhunaktu |
Saha Viiryam Karavaavahai |
Tejasvi Nau-Adhiitam-Astu Maa Vidvissaavahai |
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

Meaning:
1: Om, May God Protect us Both (the Teacher and the Student),
2: May God Nourish us Both,
3: May we Work Together with Energy and Vigour,
4: May our Study be Enlightening and not give rise to Hostility,
5: Om, Peace, Peace, Peace.

maa vid vissah-the Learning should not be poisoned;vissAh means poison.

What is the significance of maa vid vissah-the Learning should not be poisoned, in learning the scriptures directly from the guru?The Guru is exhalted and the disciple may be no less exhalted!Like VaisampAyana and yajnavalkya!

Here is that interesting story narrated by Sri Swami SivAnanda:

The name of Yajnavalkya of Mithila stands distinguished both in the Srutis and in the Smritis. Yajnavalkya is especially known for his unsurpassed spiritual wisdom and power. The seer of a Veda Samhita from Bhagavan Surya, the revealer of Brahma Jnana to Janaka, Maitreyi and others, Yajnavalkya hails supreme among sages of sacred memory. As to his obtaining the Shukla Yajurveda Samhita from Bhagavan Surya, there is the following story:-

Yajnavalkya was the son of the sister of Mahamuni Vaishampayana, the Vedacharya of the Taittiriya section. He was studying the Taittiriya Samhita from Vaishampayana who was also his Guru. Vaishampayana had many other disciples too and they all were students of the Taittiriya Shakha.

Once all the Rishis decided to form an association near the Meru mountain and made a rule that any Rishi who absented himself at the appointed hour should incur the sin of Brahmahatya (the sin of killing a Brahmin) for seven days. On that appointed day fell the Sraddha ceremony of Vaishampayana's father. Vaishampayana thought, "Somehow I have to perform my father's ceremony. If the sin of Brahmahatya comes to me, my disciples will observe the expiatory penance therefor". So Vaishampayana did not attend the meeting of the Rishis. And accordingly he incurred the sin of Brahmahatya.

Then Vaishampayana said to his disciples, "Now I have to expiate this great sin of Brahmahatya. Therefore, you all will observe, for my sake, an expiatory penance for seven days".

At once Yajnavalkya stood up and said, "O Guru! All these are poor-spirited young students. They will not be able to undergo such a hard penance. So, instead of all, I myself alone shall observe it in the manner in which nobody else can". Vaishampayana told Yajnavalkya not to undertake it alone. But Yajnavalkya persisted. The preceptor was offended at this audacious attitude of the disciple and said, "O proud one, you are very conceited. You get away from me. Enough of you who is disposed to despise wise Brahmins. Give back to me immediately whatever you have learnt from me".


Continued....
« Last Edit: June 01, 2014, 04:31:55 PM by Ravi.N »

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4051
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #913 on: June 01, 2014, 03:42:04 PM »
Shanti mantra continued...

Upon the order of the Guru, Yajnavalkya, the son of Devarata, vomited out the collection of the Yajus in the form of food. The other disciples ate that food taking the form of the Tittiri birds, because they were very eager to receive the same. They then had the direct revelation of those Yajurveda collections. As the Tittiri birds ate this Veda, it is thenceforth called the Taittiriya Yajurveda. It is also known as Krishna (black) Yajurveda on account of its being vomited substance.

Then Yajnavalkya determined not to have any human Guru thereafter. Thus he began to propitiate the Sun-God, Surya. Yajnavalkya worshipped and extolled the Sun, the master of the Vedas, for the purpose of acquiring the fresh Vedic portions not known to his preceptor, Vaishampayana.

Yajnavalkya said, "Prostration to the glorious Aditya, who in the form of the Atman, abides in all beings. I bow to Him who surrounds all like Akasa, who is one and not separated or distanced by limiting conditions. O Great God, O Creator, I contemplate upon that glowing sphere which lights and warms the whole world! O God who burns all miseries wrought by unrighteous activities, who burns ignorance which is the seed of activity! O Lord, I worship Thy lotus-like feet praised and worshipped by the rulers of the three worlds. Give me those portions of the Veda which are not known to others".

The Sun-God, the glorious Lord Hari, pleased with Yajnavalkya's penance, assumed the form of a horse and taught the sage such fresh portions of the Yajurveda as were not known to any other. This portion of the Yajurveda goes by the name of Shukla Yajurveda. It is also known as Vajasaneya Yajurveda, because it was evolved in great rapidity by Surya in the form of a horse through his manes. Yajnavalkya divided this Vajasaneya Yajurveda again into fifteen branches, each branch comprising hundreds of Yajus Mantras. Kanva, Madhyandina and others learnt those branches.

Yajnyavalkya was a self realized sage and could attain the Truth through the Grace of sun god and through self effort.He could give shukla yajurveda on account of this!What about the common lot of disciples who have to approach the Guru to learn the Vedas?There may be many things in the vedAs that they may not understand;there may be many such abstruse passages that will be beyond human understanding or that may seemingly controvert human sensibilities.On account of this there is every likelihood that the disciple may become unreceptive and biased.He may develop a conflict with what is taught.He may get caught in the externals or smattering details and miss the essence.He may get disspirited and become indifferent-These are the 'vissah'(poison) that will make him fall out.

Hence this invocation in the shanti mantra-May our Study be Enlightening and not give rise to Hostility-that this study has to be undertaken in a true spirit of Peace and exploration,setting aside all other things that may interrupt this learning.This does not mean that one is expected to swallow everything without questioning.No other scripture encourages questioning as the upanishads do.Yet this questioning should happen after one has had a reasonably good measure of learning,assimilation and practice.

namaskar.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2014, 04:24:44 PM by Ravi.N »

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4051
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #914 on: June 01, 2014, 04:15:29 PM »
Friends,
None of the Vedic sages have advocated wanton killing.If we can appreciate the importance of ahimsa,surely the Vedic seers would do so so much more immeasurably.
'Ahimsa paramO dharma!-Ahimsa is the dharma supreme'-This is how they declare.Now on this account can the world change its ways? It is obvious that this world will always be a mixture of Black and white and  the aim of the Vedas is not to paint it white but to facilitate one and all to evolve and ultimately transcend both black and white-There is at no point the illusion that the world will be 'white' only!
I have referred to the shanti mantra for this reason-that in exploring a subject,it is imporatant not to start analysing it without sufficient data and having had a sufficient grip on the subject.This will sidetrack the main objective of understanding the rudimentary fundamentals of the subject matter.

Here is an excerpt from 'I am That' of Sri Nisargadutta maharaj:

1.Q: Surely, the mere possession of mind and body does not compel to sin. There must be a third factor at the root of it. I come back again and again to this question of sin and virtue, because now-a-days young people keep on saying that there is no such thing as sin, that one need not be squermish and should follow the moment's desire readily. They will accept neither tradition nor authority and can be influenced only by solid and honest thought. If they refrain from certain actions, it is through fear of police rather than by conviction. Undoubtedly there is something in what they say, for we can see how our values change from place to place and time to time. For instance -- killing in war is great virtue today and may be considered a horrible crime next century.

M: A man who moves with the earth will necessarily experience days and nights. He who stays with the sun will know no darkness. My world is not yours. As I see it, you all are on a stage performing. There is no reality about your comings and goings. And your problems are so unreal!

2.Q: I see you sitting on an antelope skin. How does it tally with non-violence?

M: All my working life I was a cigarette-maker, helping people to spoil their health. And in front of my door the municipality has put up a public lavatory, spoiling my health. In this violent world how can one keep away from violence of some kind or other?

Q: Surely all avoidable violence should be avoided. And yet in India every holy man has his tiger, lion, leopard or antelope skin to sit on.

M: Maybe because no plastics were available in ancient times and a skin was best to keep the damp away. Rheumatism has no charm, even for a saint! Thus the tradition arose that for lengthy meditations a skin is needed. Just like the drum-hide in a temple, so is the antelope skin of a Yogi. We hardly notice it.

Q: But the animal had to be killed.

M: I have never heard of a Yogi killing a tiger for his hide. The killers are not Yogis and the Yogis are not killers.

Q: Should you not express your disapproval by refusing to sit on a skin?

M: What an idea! I disapprove of the entire universe, why only a skin?

Surely not even .000001% of the world population can follow what Maharaj has to say!The vedas also say the same thing but they do so for the one who is ripe enough for that.For the rest also,the Vedas recommend what is appropriate at that stage in development.It does not tell a 'Tiger'-Please be friendly with the 'antelope'-just graze on grass!
The world is not made to suit our comfort and sensibility.So, personally I too am a strict vegetarian and uphold non-killing but on this score I do not expect that the world has to adopt that.This land of the Rishis is where this teaching of ahimsa has prevailed since hoary ages and it still is paramO dharma.No question about this.

Namaskar
« Last Edit: June 01, 2014, 04:29:52 PM by Ravi.N »