What Vedas are not

[Guest guest]

Namnaste Ben and all

I quite like your 'reconciliation' between science and miracles.

I tend to agree with you that these are distractions....so I'll limit

my indulgence to a few lines.

 

Miracles like a barren woman's son cannot happen. Miracle does not

bend laws set in motion in 'this world' by the SELF.

 

Certain events have a potential to happen albeit with very low odds -

say as low as one in a zillion.

Examples like a miraculous revcovery, some person materialising and

helping me out when I am lost and vanishing after the job is done

etc.

 

I remember from Ramana Maharshi's dialogues that from the stand point

of a lay person The Saint may be seen to be performing miracles. But

the saint himself would not be taking 'ownership'. He would query '

do you think Jesus would will miracles to happen or have said I

performed these miracles - though they may be happening in his

precense ?'.

 

Having said that I am yet to come to grips with the Sea parting for

Moses and Infant Krishna.

 

But then, in a sense, everything we see and perceive, like the Sun

rising, a tree coming up from a seed, the fragrance in a rose, the

love that wells up in ones heart..... are these themselves not

miracles at which we have stopped wondering every moment.

 

MAny thousand Pranams to all

Sridhar

>

> Please note that it is unscientific to say that so-

called 'miracles'

> or deviations from the customary laws of physics NEVER occur. All

> the scientist can do is observe what *tends* to occur in his

> laboratory under controlled circumstances. In other words,

> statistics. However, these statistics can be assumed to operate

> %99.999 of the time and are pretty good at explaining our mundane

> world.

>

> Either way, I don't think that miracles have much bearing on

> enlightenment. They are more likely to be a distraction. Still, I

> am intrigued to find them in books such as Yogananda's

Autobiography,

> since I consider him an honest person. It makes me wonder.

>

> If consciousness survives the death of the body, then that is

surely

> a miracle to the materialist. If it doesn't survive, it is a

> catastrophe for everybody!

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji and all

I am truly worried. Not having studied or understood Vedas, I was

by and large satisfied with a simplistic explanation that a lot of

wrong practices and rituals of today are due to wrong/misguided

interpretations of our scriptures over time.

 

If my modern education makes me abhor religious rites involving

Animal sacrifices, I would not be apolegetic. Rather,I would thank

God for the modern education which will allow me to keep elevating

spiritual practices by elevating them to a higher plane after

discerning the principles behind what was prescribed in rituals.

I tend to agree with another person who has posted here that we

extract the principle of ' sacrificing/ renouncing/ giving up'

something we hold very dear to us rather than take the need for

animal sacrifice literally.

 

In the Kali yuga you do not need to perform 100 yagas to get Indra

Padavi and move upwards from there on. Nama Japa, even in not so pure

conditions is promised a s a means for liberation.

 

The reason 'my' mind is repulsed by the idea of Animal sacrifices is

two fold.

1. It will be against Dharma and living in harmony with elements

that Vedas speak about.

2. There are dangers and We could stretch the logic for animal

sacrifice further to - child sacrifice, Honour sacrifice ( a practise

known in some villages where a vigin girl has to run naked in the

village to bring forth rains), Sati...... and oh my god! let me stop

here. We are here to evolve and not to go back in time in terms of

human values.

 

My apologies in advance if I have given a wrong interpretation to a

well meaning dissertation. As has been demonstrated before I could be

quite an ignoramus.

 

Many thousand Namaskarams to all advaitins

Sridhar

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Mohanji,

>

> It is true that a number of sacrifices mentioned in the Vedas are

to

> be understood in symbolic terms. But we also need to recognise that

> there is the question of valuation that influences our

> interpretations of the Vedas. The valuation instilled in us by our

> modern education makes us abhor religious rites involving animal

> sacrifice, with the result that we tend to become apologetic when

we

> come across such passages in our Agamas. But I believe that

adherence

> to truth is more important than apologetic hermeneutics.

[Guest guest]

My profound Namaskarasm to Sridharji,

 

We are at a stage we dont know how many times interpretations had

been taken place. Especially when this country had been looted by

foreing invaders.

 

There are many people in our country who hate The Great Manu.

Whatever is injuncted by Manu is alright. The only thing is that at

this juncture it may look wrong after passing thousands of

generations because our previous generations had also observed them

because of Western thinking and their interpretation of our Dharmik

Granthas.

 

So I wonder with our little knowledge if we dont follow the

injunctions of Vedas and great Law Makers Manu, what will happen to

our forthcoming generations. May God save this country.

 

The only thing is that we have to take the help of highly learned

people like Peethadhipatis.

 

It is quite natural to get a dobut that why Vedas prescribed animal

sacrifice. May be it is symbalising Tyaga Bhavana. We are back to

Vedas more than thousand centuries.

 

Vedas to be understood in vedic sense.

 

Forgive me if my opinions hurt anybody. Also I request all to

forgive me if there are any mistakes in my write-up.

 

Sorry for taking the liberty to address this group which has highly

learned people.

 

Many many pranams to all members,

[Guest guest]

Dear Sridharji,

 

I understand the sentiments behind your words. But we need not worry

so much about these things because animal sacrifices are not part of

nitya karma for people like us and they don't have to be compulsorily

performed. You and I have been spared! :-)

 

But seriously, I think the topic is not as simplistic as it seems.

Why is it that we all get worked up about animal sacrifices in the

Vedas when at the same time we go about our lives with the blase

acceptance of the fact that more than a million animals are killed

every day for the mere pleasures of gluttonous dinners? How many of

us feel the scale of animal sacrifice that takes place when we spray

millions of insects for obtaining bountiful crops?

 

It is sad, but life is like that! Look around you and everywhere you

will see this dark aspect of life - that life feeds on life, that one

animal must experience the stark fear of staring into the face of its

predator, that it must experience this cold feeling of being

annihilated only to feed another animal for a mere day. Why indeed

has the Creator created such a cruel world? When we have an answer to

this question, then perhaps shall we be able to judge the meaning of

animal sacrifice in the Vedas.

 

Animal sacrifice has nothing to do with liberation. It is part of

karma-khanda which is the way of right actions in the flow of

samsara. In this context, it is not against dharma to follow the

injunctions of the Vedas. The Vedas define dharma. By the same logic,

it is against dharma to stretch the meanings of the Vedas to perform

motivated sacrifices that are not mentioned therein.

 

What is recommended for the Kali Yuga by the Smritis does not negate

the Vedas, they only recognise the fact that in Kali Yuga people are

confused and accordingly they prescribe suitable means for people to

rise within the context of this confused state of affairs.

 

It is not my aim here to countenance the killing of animals, but it

is obligatory for us to understand what "apaurusheya" means before we

go about giving our own personalised meanings to the Vedas.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

> Namaste Chittaranjanji and all

> I am truly worried. Not having studied or understood Vedas, I was

> by and large satisfied with a simplistic explanation that a lot of

> wrong practices and rituals of today are due to wrong/misguided

> interpretations of our scriptures over time.

>

> If my modern education makes me abhor religious rites involving

> Animal sacrifices, I would not be apolegetic. Rather,I would thank

> God for the modern education which will allow me to keep elevating

> spiritual practices by elevating them to a higher plane after

> discerning the principles behind what was prescribed in rituals.

> I tend to agree with another person who has posted here that we

> extract the principle of ' sacrificing/ renouncing/ giving up'

> something we hold very dear to us rather than take the need for

> animal sacrifice literally.

>

> In the Kali yuga you do not need to perform 100 yagas to get Indra

> Padavi and move upwards from there on. Nama Japa, even in not so

pure

> conditions is promised a s a means for liberation.

>

> The reason 'my' mind is repulsed by the idea of Animal sacrifices

is

> two fold.

> 1. It will be against Dharma and living in harmony with

elements

> that Vedas speak about.

> 2. There are dangers and We could stretch the logic for animal

> sacrifice further to - child sacrifice, Honour sacrifice ( a

practise

> known in some villages where a vigin girl has to run naked in the

> village to bring forth rains), Sati...... and oh my god! let me

stop

> here. We are here to evolve and not to go back in time in terms of

> human values.

>

> My apologies in advance if I have given a wrong interpretation to a

> well meaning dissertation. As has been demonstrated before I could

be

> quite an ignoramus.

>

> Many thousand Namaskarams to all advaitins

> Sridhar

>

>

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> > Namaste Mohanji,

> >

> > It is true that a number of sacrifices mentioned in the Vedas are

> to

> > be understood in symbolic terms. But we also need to recognise

that

> > there is the question of valuation that influences our

> > interpretations of the Vedas. The valuation instilled in us by

our

> > modern education makes us abhor religious rites involving animal

> > sacrifice, with the result that we tend to become apologetic when

> we

> > come across such passages in our Agamas. But I believe that

> adherence

> > to truth is more important than apologetic hermeneutics.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mohanji,

 

There are two crucial points you have touched upon in your post. You

have rightly stressed the importance of the mantras and the sound of

the mantras in performing Vedic sacrifices. But you've also mentioned

that you like to look at animal sacrifice in the Vedas as a kind of

cult-phenomena with limited following, and this is the subject on

which I feel something needs to be said.

 

While I agree with you that animal sacrifice might not have been as

prevalent in Vedic culture as our discussions here might have made it

appear, at the same time I think your classification of Vedic animal

sacrifice as some kind of a 'cult' makes us obliged to return to the

topic of Vedic sacrifice. It calls for focusing not so much on the

Vedas, but on our own propensities of "liking" to look at the Vedas

in a certain manner. We all have our likes and dislikes that are

influenced not only by our individual leanings but also by our

upbringing, education, culture and experience in life. Unfortunately

these likings become the lenses through which we look at the Vedas.

But the Vedas are apaurusheya -- they are not of human origin, and it

demands that we keep aside our likings when we look at them. The Veda

is to be looked upon as the Unquestionable. That is the foundation of

the supreme faith that the Mimamsa Philosophers had in the Vedas, and

it is the unmovable basis on which the Vedas become the highest

authority and the foremost of the pramanas for Vedanta.

 

What does it mean to say that the Vedas are eternal and apaurusheya?

I am not a qualified person to explain its meaning, and if I make an

attempt here it is only because I strongly feel that the kind of

liberal interpretations being given to the Vedas is not commensurate

with the nature of Vedas as apaurusheya.

 

The Vedas are not created: they are Shruti, they are what is heard.

Even with all our limitations we must still try to understand what

this means before we pass our judgments on the Vedas. Now, where are

the Vedas heard? They are surely heard when the brahmins chant them,

but that chanting is only the tuning-in to the resonance of the Vedas

that resides eternally in Brahman. The Vedas are there in the para

state even in the dissolution of the universe -- the para is the

subtlest of the four states of "the word", the other three being

pashyanti, madhyama and vaikari. The Mahabhasya of Patanjali states

that the para state of the word is where it remains in identity with

Brahman. Within creation, the Veda is the throb of creation, the

spanda or eternal vibration in the heart of Reality.

 

The Vedas come down to us from the Vedic seers that heard them in the

Heart of Being. What they heard is apaurusheya because they did not

hear these sounds as persons do, they heard them by dispossessing

themselves of the masks of persona and becoming completely

transparent to the sphurana of Brahman. That is why the Veda is

apaurusheya – no person (or mask of persona) stands between the

sphurana of Brahman and the Veda that has come down to us. That is

why the Veda is to be chanted with such metrical and phonetic purity -

– so that it may find resonance with the eternal spanda of Brahman --

for the Veda is the eternal voice of Brahman.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, S Mohan <mohanirmala> wrote:

> Pranams to Advaitins,

> In continuing the discussion on the Vedas ... some clarity on a

particular aspect would be welcome .....

> The Vedas are said to comprise broadly two parts .. the 'Karma

Kanda' ( comprising the Brahmanas and Aranyakas) and the 'Jnana

Kanda' ( comprising the Upanishads ..also known as Vedanta).

> The current discussion is presumably regarding the Karma Kanda. The

most significant aspects of the Karma Kanda are the Mantras and the

Rituals( or Prescribed Processes).

> For the last 15 years on various occasions I have been fortunate to

be able to participate in various such events , sometimes as an

observer, and some times as the Main Performer ( Yajamana ). At first

I was just a mute participant , mechanically doing the things advised

by the purohit. In the last few years a change is visible. I have

started taking the mantras and the processes quite seriously. A great

curiosity has developed to learn and understand it all a little

better. Also I have been reading Paramacharya's discourses on this

subject.

> The important thing that strikes one is the crucial part of

Mantras. The processes are more in the form of an adjunct meant to

ensure some purification of the place, and one's person but more

importantly to focus one's attention to the moment. It is the mantra

that plays a key role in the fulfilment of the objective, it appears.

The power of sound in making things happen . We depend on the

correctness of the sound patterns on the vaidika or purohit. But it

seems likely that the sound vibrations produced by the mantras are

potent in influencing the result.

> At the individual level also it is important. In the personal

meditation and performance of Ashtanga Yoga the mantra is important.

> But at the large scale level or universal level, one can easily

imagine how very important it can be.

> There may be a lot of truth in what is stated about the benefits of

the ritualistic approach. I have had the opportunity to witness the

performance of some pretty large scale such Vedic rituals in recent

years. In no case, to the best of my knowledge, has any animal

sacrifice taken place.

> There are cults , perhaps all over the world, today and may have

been there in the past , where such animal or ( like the Maya

civilisations ) human sacrifices were and are prevalent. But I like

to look at such cases as ' cults ' , that is, limited groupings . In

the universal level which the Vedas represent, there is complete

purity and respect for all forms of life. The benefits of the rituals

are supposed to benefit all of creation. But benefit to the world can

only come from sacrifice of narrow sectarianism and limited

approachs. That may be what the Vedas are talking about.

> This is just a humble un-informed view . Your comments and

corrections are welcome.

> Warm regards and pranams

> Mohan

[Guest guest]

Pranams Naikji,

Thanks for a very detailed clarification ...

 

At the outset may I clear a small misunderstanding that may have

unwittingly crept in due to my wording ...

'There are cults , perhaps all over the world, today and may have

been there in

the past , where such animal or ( like the Maya civilisations )

human sacrifices

were and are prevalent. But I like to look at such cases as '

cults ' , that is,

limited groupings . In the universal level which the Vedas

represent, there is

complete purity and respect for all forms of life.'

 

I was not implying that the Vedic sacrifice had anything to do with

these cults . I meant that these may be what one could call 'de-

generated ' behaviour not at all related to the Vedas.

 

I appreciate all that you have said and your confirmation that the

mantra is all important in the Karma Kanda. However, is it because

of our inability to comprehend the language used which accounts for

the difference of opinion ? I know a lot of very detailed research

has taken place and is going on even today. Just as there have been

Bhashyas on the various Upanishads have there been any

interpretations of the Mantras in the Karma Kanda ?

 

Would appreciate your advice.

 

However, I also appreciate your point that the Vedas

are 'aupurusheya' and logic and analysis are not the tools for

dealing with them ..rather it is faith which will be the best

approach. The problem is that the way we are educated and live life

nowadays , the mind searches all the time for 'meanings' which we

can understand and tends to shy away from 'belief'! We draw

parallels with day-to-day examples and metaphors to explain

everything we read or hear about. This approach fails when it comes

to the Vedas , particularly the sukthas and mantras.

 

How are we to deal with modern man and his questioning ,

particularly in respect of the Vedic mantras? Could it be that with

our adherence to the methodology prescribed we create faith in

others?

Regards and pranams

Mohan

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Mohanji,

>

> There are two crucial points you have touched upon in your post.

You

> have rightly stressed the importance of the mantras and the sound

of

> the mantras in performing Vedic sacrifices. But you've also

mentioned

> that you like to look at animal sacrifice in the Vedas as a kind

of

> cult-phenomena with limited following, and this is the subject on

> which I feel something needs to be said.

>

> While I agree with you that animal sacrifice might not have been

as

> prevalent in Vedic culture as our discussions here might have made

it

> appear, at the same time I think your classification of Vedic

animal

> sacrifice as some kind of a 'cult' makes us obliged to return to

the

> topic of Vedic sacrifice. It calls for focusing not so much on the

> Vedas, but on our own propensities of "liking" to look at the

Vedas

> in a certain manner. We all have our likes and dislikes that are

> influenced not only by our individual leanings but also by our

> upbringing, education, culture and experience in life.

Unfortunately

> these likings become the lenses through which we look at the

Vedas.

> But the Vedas are apaurusheya -- they are not of human origin, and

it

> demands that we keep aside our likings when we look at them. The

Veda

> is to be looked upon as the Unquestionable. That is the foundation

of

> the supreme faith that the Mimamsa Philosophers had in the Vedas,

and

> it is the unmovable basis on which the Vedas become the highest

> authority and the foremost of the pramanas for Vedanta.

>

> What does it mean to say that the Vedas are eternal and

apaurusheya?

> I am not a qualified person to explain its meaning, and if I make

an

> attempt here it is only because I strongly feel that the kind of

> liberal interpretations being given to the Vedas is not

commensurate

> with the nature of Vedas as apaurusheya.

>

> The Vedas are not created: they are Shruti, they are what is

heard.

> Even with all our limitations we must still try to understand what

> this means before we pass our judgments on the Vedas. Now, where

are

> the Vedas heard? They are surely heard when the brahmins chant

them,

> but that chanting is only the tuning-in to the resonance of the

Vedas

> that resides eternally in Brahman. The Vedas are there in the para

> state even in the dissolution of the universe -- the para is the

> subtlest of the four states of "the word", the other three being

> pashyanti, madhyama and vaikari. The Mahabhasya of Patanjali

states

> that the para state of the word is where it remains in identity

with

> Brahman. Within creation, the Veda is the throb of creation, the

> spanda or eternal vibration in the heart of Reality.

>

> The Vedas come down to us from the Vedic seers that heard them in

the

> Heart of Being. What they heard is apaurusheya because they did

not

> hear these sounds as persons do, they heard them by dispossessing

> themselves of the masks of persona and becoming completely

> transparent to the sphurana of Brahman. That is why the Veda is

> apaurusheya – no person (or mask of persona) stands between the

> sphurana of Brahman and the Veda that has come down to us. That is

> why the Veda is to be chanted with such metrical and phonetic

purity -

> – so that it may find resonance with the eternal spanda of

Brahman --

> for the Veda is the eternal voice of Brahman.

>

> With regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

>

>

> advaitin, S Mohan <mohanirmala> wrote:

> > Pranams to Advaitins,

> > In continuing the discussion on the Vedas ... some clarity on a

> particular aspect would be welcome .....

> > The Vedas are said to comprise broadly two parts .. the 'Karma

> Kanda' ( comprising the Brahmanas and Aranyakas) and the 'Jnana

> Kanda' ( comprising the Upanishads ..also known as Vedanta).

> > The current discussion is presumably regarding the Karma Kanda.

The

> most significant aspects of the Karma Kanda are the Mantras and

the

> Rituals( or Prescribed Processes).

> > For the last 15 years on various occasions I have been fortunate

to

> be able to participate in various such events , sometimes as an

> observer, and some times as the Main Performer ( Yajamana ). At

first

> I was just a mute participant , mechanically doing the things

advised

> by the purohit. In the last few years a change is visible. I have

> started taking the mantras and the processes quite seriously. A

great

> curiosity has developed to learn and understand it all a little

> better. Also I have been reading Paramacharya's discourses on this

> subject.

> > The important thing that strikes one is the crucial part of

> Mantras. The processes are more in the form of an adjunct meant to

> ensure some purification of the place, and one's person but more

> importantly to focus one's attention to the moment. It is the

mantra

> that plays a key role in the fulfilment of the objective, it

appears.

> The power of sound in making things happen . We depend on the

> correctness of the sound patterns on the vaidika or purohit. But

it

> seems likely that the sound vibrations produced by the mantras are

> potent in influencing the result.

> > At the individual level also it is important. In the personal

> meditation and performance of Ashtanga Yoga the mantra is

important.

> > But at the large scale level or universal level, one can easily

> imagine how very important it can be.

> > There may be a lot of truth in what is stated about the benefits

of

> the ritualistic approach. I have had the opportunity to witness

the

> performance of some pretty large scale such Vedic rituals in

recent

> years. In no case, to the best of my knowledge, has any animal

> sacrifice taken place.

> > There are cults , perhaps all over the world, today and may have

> been there in the past , where such animal or ( like the Maya

> civilisations ) human sacrifices were and are prevalent. But I

like

> to look at such cases as ' cults ' , that is, limited groupings .

In

> the universal level which the Vedas represent, there is complete

> purity and respect for all forms of life. The benefits of the

rituals

> are supposed to benefit all of creation. But benefit to the world

can

> only come from sacrifice of narrow sectarianism and limited

> approachs. That may be what the Vedas are talking about.

> > This is just a humble un-informed view . Your comments and

> corrections are welcome.

> > Warm regards and pranams

> > Mohan

[Guest guest]

chittaranjanji...namaste..

 

U said.."The Vedas come down to us from the Vedic seers that heard them in the

Heart of Being. "

I agree with you fully.

This is one experiences that many of the spiritual aspirants wud have had.That

is when u meditate...the kundli awakens and when it reaches the anahat chakra in

the heart people do hear the AKAASHWANI...or the divine voice..certainly it is

apaurashya.

> Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

> Namaste Mohanji,

 

List Moderator Note: Lengthy previous messages expunged.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "mohanirmala" <mohanirmala>

wrote:

> Pranams Naikji,

> Thanks for a very detailed clarification ...

> > I was not implying that the Vedic sacrifice had anything to do

with

> these cults . I meant that these may be what one could call 'de-

> generated ' behaviour not at all related to the Vedas.

 

 

Namaste,

 

S. Radhakrihnan (in The Principal Upanishads) quotes

Anandagiri : "....this permission was due to local conditions - desha-

visheShApekShayA kAla-visheShApekShayA vA ma.nsa-niyamaH ..."

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri. Chittaranjan

Your words are as always delighting and soothing.

I too cannot yet accept the mass slaughtering of animals and all the

other such problems that you have so well captured.

 

I do believe that Saints in different ages do give a new meaning ( or

do they bring out a latent meaning or present it in a different

light) according to the times. For Instance, Swami Chinmayananda

never tired of exhorting - I am presenting this from memory :

When Krishna says you must perform yajna - it will be silly to

interpret it as krishna exhorting arjuna to perform rituals.There are

many scholars who have interpreted Yajna as rituals - plain and

simple- done in a yajna shala etc. The real meaning in all its

beauty and grandeur comes out only if we interpret Yajna as activity

undertaken to invoke productive potential in one's chosen field of

action . It should be performed without attachment to the results

etc. Thus my work could be a yajna. A wife could devote her life to

managing home affairs with yajna bhava.

 

Hence, coming back to where i started, my question is, along similar

lines, is it not possible to see the prescription for sacrifices in a

higher light rather than take prescribed rituals for animal sacrifice

literally.

 

The head accepts your logic that we cannot read revealed knowledge

differently. The heart struggles to accept and fails .

I guess this is one more of those things that I file away as 'To be

resolved on realizing Self'

 

Many thousand namaskarams to all advaitins.

Sridhar

 

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Dear Sridharji,

>

> I understand the sentiments behind your words. But we need not

worry

> so much about these things because animal sacrifices are not part

of

> nitya karma for people like us and they don't have to be

compulsorily

> performed. You and I have been spared! :-)

>

> But seriously, I think the topic is not as simplistic as it seems.

> Why is it that we all get worked up about animal sacrifices in the

> Vedas when at the same time we go about our lives with the blase

> acceptance of the fact that more than a million animals are killed

> every day for the mere pleasures of gluttonous dinners? How many of

> us feel the scale of animal sacrifice that takes place when we

spray

> millions of insects for obtaining bountiful crops?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mohanji,

 

I have this fault of occasionally not being able to keep my words on

a leash. My apologies for any hurt that I may have caused by my

strong wording.

 

In regards of the Vedas, I believe that the mind cannot understand

it, and therefore academic research that is based on the

intellections of the mind will not be able to understand it. The

Vedas can perhaps be understood by returning to the nativity of the

Self. I do not know, and I really meant it when I said that I am not

qualified to say much on this subject. I do not even know Sanskrit.

But some intuition tells me that to understand the Mantras one has to

go to the source where Shakti performs Her living magic from the

Heart of Shiva.

 

You ask about faith and reason and the predilection of the modern

man. But is there in truth a divorce between faith and reason? Isn't

reason the means to return to faith? All this world is verily the

faith of the Self, and reason is our vehicle to go back home to the

fixity of that Faith. In the cave of the heart, reason is one with

the faithful heart.

 

What is reason? It is a questioning and a discovering. But what does

a question question? If the questioning heart must ever come to rest,

it must have within itself that stamp of truth by which it judges the

answer to be true. That stamp is the answer. That judgment is the

nyaya of reason. That truth which is stamped on the soul is the world

projected outward and which it now questions. That stamp is the

original faith to which the lost soul now returns by the light of

reason in the mystical union of the bride soul with her lord, the

Self. The fracture of faith is the questioning of reason, and the

binding of faith is the gift of the answering reason. But reason does

not remain in that union, it merges into the heart while the soul

dances with light steps in the gardens of Elysium.

 

We are the children of Light groping in the darkness of the unreal.

We need reason to cleave the darkness and be born into Light. Yet

reason is a circuitous route to the truth. Faith and love is the

shorter route because unswerving Faithfulness and unbounded Love is

the very nature of Truth. Reason in Kali Yuga has been ransacked by

the asuras. The asuras were once out there in the world, and today

they are here in the stitches of our minds. Therefore has it been

said that in Kali Yuga, Bhakti is the easier path to the Radiant One.

 

These are the outpourings of a foolish heart that has not learnt to

be a complete fool. :-)

 

With warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, "mohanirmala" <mohanirmala>

wrote:

> Pranams Naikji,

> Thanks for a very detailed clarification ...

>

> At the outset may I clear a small misunderstanding that may have

> unwittingly crept in due to my wording ...

> 'There are cults , perhaps all over the world, today and may have

> been there in

> the past , where such animal or ( like the Maya civilisations )

> human sacrifices

> were and are prevalent. But I like to look at such cases as '

> cults ' , that is,

> limited groupings . In the universal level which the Vedas

> represent, there is

> complete purity and respect for all forms of life.'

>

> I was not implying that the Vedic sacrifice had anything to do with

> these cults . I meant that these may be what one could call 'de-

> generated ' behaviour not at all related to the Vedas.

>

> I appreciate all that you have said and your confirmation that the

> mantra is all important in the Karma Kanda. However, is it because

> of our inability to comprehend the language used which accounts for

> the difference of opinion ? I know a lot of very detailed research

> has taken place and is going on even today. Just as there have been

> Bhashyas on the various Upanishads have there been any

> interpretations of the Mantras in the Karma Kanda ?

>

> Would appreciate your advice.

>

> However, I also appreciate your point that the Vedas

> are 'aupurusheya' and logic and analysis are not the tools for

> dealing with them ..rather it is faith which will be the best

> approach. The problem is that the way we are educated and live life

> nowadays , the mind searches all the time for 'meanings' which we

> can understand and tends to shy away from 'belief'! We draw

> parallels with day-to-day examples and metaphors to explain

> everything we read or hear about. This approach fails when it comes

> to the Vedas , particularly the sukthas and mantras.

>

> How are we to deal with modern man and his questioning ,

> particularly in respect of the Vedic mantras? Could it be that with

> our adherence to the methodology prescribed we create faith in

> others?

> Regards and pranams

> Mohan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Vasuji,

I believe in something that is appealing to my intellect. I am not asking your

nor anybody to accept my way of thinking, neither am I an animal rights

activist. Nor am I campaigning for vegetarianism.

 

But please don't expect me to blind myself to everything and live life simply

because that's the way its presented to me. That's a fatalistic attitude and I

am not a total fatalist.

we always have a element of choice and to question, and we must exercise that ,

so our higher self is realized. otherwise we are no better than the lamb that is

led to the slaughter house and this human birth is a waste.

I will accept and cannot help, but be awed by the depth and profoundness in the

discussion of Atman in the Upanishads. But that's about it. I want to go no

further

and try to justify what seems to be sheer butchery.

 

Again, this is only my personal opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs.

 

Best Regards

Guruprasad

 

vasu145 <vasu145 wrote:

Namaste Guru Venkat ji

 

See Sir, we are no body to decide why Vedas suggested animal

sacrifice and in what sense.

 

 

 

 

 

Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.