Becoming indifferent to the vedas

[theist]

 

The demigods are powerful living entities appointed by the Supreme Lord for the maintenance and supervision of all material functions like the heating, watering and lighting of the universe. Those who are interested in material benefits worship the demigods by various sacrifices according to the Vedic rituals.

 

So it is clear that for transcendentalists any vedic rituals that are aimed at satisfying some demigod for material gain hold no attraction because they are not interested in obtaining material things. So we can lay such instructions aside irrespective if they come labeled "vedic" or not.

[bhaktajan]

My calcs per Bhagavatam, is Jada Bharata lived during the 1st Manu's lifetime 2 Billion 160 Million years ago [2,160,000,000 BC ---SB 8.1.4] His great-great Grand-father was Priyavrata, who was son of Svayambhuva Manu [1st Manu of the current Day-of-Brahma (the current kalpa) ~we are now in the 7th Manu's lifetime] . . .

 

so, Now . . . after so much time has past since Jada Bharata's time ---we are so sure that an unrevealed, hidden mantra, specifically, the HARE KRISHNA MAHA MANTRA, as "recorded" in the Kali-santarana Upanishad ---was not known to any one anywhere at any time other than sudras, mudhas and dinanaradhamas 5,000 years into our precious gestation years of Kali-yuga???

 

I admit that Srila Prabhupada used the term "Chanted Hare Krishna" when translating an ancient event where Vedic Sages or even Vedic Demigods prayed Hymns & Mantras . . . he did the same, interchangably with terms like, "preformed devotional Service" or "preformed bhakti-yoga" or "prayed to the Supreme Lord" or "chanted Vedic mantras" or "preformed jagyas" or "recited pastimes of the ancients" . . .

 

So, Raghu, [allow me to throw a curve ball at you here]:

 

Why do you (though I know it's easily acceptable by most people) dismiss the notion that the Hare Krishna Mahamantra was once known and was bestowed to us after the disciplic succession was lost?

 

Why do you dismiss that Srila Prabhupada's tranlation is only what appears on the surface? There SHOULD BE hidden depths in his commentaries & especially in his choice words in his sanskrit translations.

 

So, the dhatus (sanskrit word-roots) in the words: HA RE KRISH NA & RA MA should be of ernest interest ---not the professorial choice of noumenclature ---except by other scholars' works-in-progress, maybe.

[raghu]

 

My calcs per Bhagavatam, is Jada Bharata lived during the 1st Manu's lifetime 2 Billion 160 Million years ago [2,160,000,000 BC ---SB 8.1.4] His great-great Grand-father was Priyavrata, who was son of Svayambhuva Manu [1st Manu of the current Day-of-Brahma (the current kalpa) ~we are now in the 7th Manu's lifetime] . . .

 

so, Now . . . after so much time has past since Jada Bharata's time ---we are so sure that an unrevealed, hidden mantra, specifically, the HARE KRISHNA MAHA MANTRA, as "recorded" in the Kali-santarana Upanishad ---was not known to any one anywhere at any time other than sudras, mudhas and dinanaradhamas 5,000 years into our precious gestation years of Kali-yuga???

 

I admit that Srila Prabhupada used the term "Chanted Hare Krishna" when translating an ancient event where Vedic Sages or even Vedic Demigods prayed Hymns & Mantras . . . he did the same, interchangably with terms like, "preformed devotional Service" or "preformed bhakti-yoga" or "prayed to the Supreme Lord" or "chanted Vedic mantras" or "preformed jagyas" or "recited pastimes of the ancients" . . .

 

So, Raghu, [allow me to throw a curve ball at you here]:

 

Why do you (though I know it's easily acceptable by most people) dismiss the notion that the Hare Krishna Mahamantra was once known and was bestowed to us after the disciplic succession was lost?

 

Why do you dismiss that Srila Prabhupada's tranlation is only what appears on the surface? There SHOULD BE hidden depths in his commentaries & especially in his choice words in his sanskrit translations.

 

So, the dhatus (sanskrit word-roots) in the words: HA RE KRISH NA & RA MA should be of ernest interest ---not the professorial choice of noumenclature ---except by other scholars' works-in-progress, maybe.

 

I really do not understand the need for this excessively verbose and basically irrelevant digression. Nor do I understand your need to put words in my mouth.

 

There are only three points that I have made on this thread:

 

1) The gita verse quoted from chapter 2 does NOT, as Theist has falsely claimed, imply that one should become indifferent to the Vedas.

 

2) Someone claimed that Jada Bharata wanted to chant Hare Krishna instead of studying the Vedas. This is false - there is no evidence that Jada Bharata was specifically chanting Hare Krishna or wanting to chant Hare Krishna. Perhaps he did, but the Bhagavatam does not say so one way or another.

 

3) One must represent the scriptures honestly.

[melvin]

 

So it is clear that for transcendentalists any vedic rituals that are aimed at satisfying some demigod for material gain hold no attraction because they are not interested in obtaining material things. So we can lay such instructions aside irrespective if they come labeled "vedic" or not.

 

Catholics worship saints for material benefit, except the Santo Nino de Cebu, who is worshiped by transcendentalists to achieve liberation and non-transcendentalists for material gain.The Holy Child of Cebu is God Himself and yet Catholics call Him a saint. There must be a reason why.

[Dasosmi]

 

That is an interesting analogy which illustrates the point that you are trying to make. I have no difficulty understanding the point you are trying to make, so I did not require an analogy to understand it.

 

All I have stated is that the point you are trying to make does NOT follow from the Gita verse quoted. The Gita does NOT talk about becoming "indifferent to the Vedas." Why would it, since its own authority is based on the Vedas? That does not even make sense.

 

 

The translations quoted are from Bhagavad gita as it is.

 

The verse above is text number 52.Krishna started convertation on this topic starting at text 39 where he says "Thus far I have declared to you the analytical knowledge of sankhya philosophy. Now listen to the knowledge of yoga whereby one works without fruitive result. O son of Prtha, when you act by such intelligence, you can free yourself from the bondage of works."

 

He goes on talking on this topic and on verses 42-43 he says "Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this."

 

On verse 45 and 46 he says "The Vedas mainly deal with the subject of the three modes of material nature. Rise above these modes, O Arjuna. Be transcendental to all of them. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the Self. All purposes that are served by the small pond can at once be served by the great reservoirs of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them."

 

On verse 49 he says "O Dhananjaya, rid yourself of all fruitive activities by devotional service, and surrender fully to that consciousness. Those who want to enjoy the fruits of their work are misers."

 

Then on verse 52, the verse on current discussion he says "When your intelligence has passed out of the dense forest of delusion, you shall become indifferent to all that has been heard and all that is to be heard."

 

It seems obvious that this verse is referring to being indifferent to the vedas that deal mainly with 3 modes of material nature by knowing who is to be known by them. It's like saying, Tom is a good person. He is also very short. Now if someone simply quotes the sentence saying he is short, then yes, there's no Tom in that sentence. But if one looks at the sentence before that, its very obvious who its referring to.

[theist]

 

Catholics worship saints for material benefit, except the Santo Nino de Cebu, who is worshiped by transcendentalists to achieve liberation and non-transcendentalists for material gain.The Holy Child of Cebu is God Himself and yet Catholics call Him a saint. There must be a reason why.

 

Apparently then the Catholics have taken to a type of demigod worship. No where has Jesus Christ instructed to do this. But hey why should they let that stop them. Forget the fact that Jesus said we can not worship the things of the material world and Love God at the same time;" No man can have two masters..."

 

By Jesus's personal example even liberation or salvation from hell and suffering is not the goal. The only goal Jesus showed the world was to surrender one's will to the will of God and serve at His pleasure.

[melvin]

 

Apparently then the Catholics have taken to a type of demigod worship. No where has Jesus Christ instructed to do this. But hey why should they let that stop them. Forget the fact that Jesus said we can not worship the things of the material world and Love God at the same time;" No man can have two masters..."

 

 

 

My point here is that the Santo Nino de Cebu isn`t a demigod but God himself. Why the Catholics call the Holy Child of Cebu saint confuses me. The Catholic Church maybe have found it difficult to deny Krsna is the Santo Nino least she denies Jesus is the Christ. To solve this problem the Vatican may have commissioned ISKCON to look for scribes who`ll do research quoting verses from the Bible and Srimad Bhagavatam with identical contexts. I know because I was one of the few recruited by ISKCON. Trikalajna Prabhu of ISKCONDC sent me in the early 2000 a copy of this confidential syncrethization plan. This was when ISKCONDC knew from my post in her website`s discussion forums that my eldest son, Matthew have decided to enter the priesthood which later became moot and academic not going through with it when I found Matthew have lost the desire to continue his studies in the seminary.

[theist]

Well I don't know anything about this child of Cebu. But the point about worshipping different saints to get material benedictions fits the thread.

 

One can get material benefits by going straight to the Supreme person and asking for them. He may or may not give them to you but one thing is for sure, no demigod has any benediction to give other then what Krishna gives them to give.

 

So Krishna is the only benefactor rather we know it or not.

 

But whose to judge the soul that wants benedictions from God. We all do. We all are imperfectly motivated in our seeking out the Lord. Some want heaven and some want liberation. We are all selfish.

 

Okay we admit we are selfish. What to do? First thing is to know what the real self is. What is in our real best interest? We must learn to act in the best interest of our real self and not this false identity.

 

One who is selfish in this way will only ask saints or demi-gods or God Himself to give them knowledge about the Lord.

 

Material benedictions including liberation are ultimately all useless so why bother with the demi-gods other than to be respectful.

 

Krishna taught the residents of Vrndavana that He is their only shelter.

 

 

 

 

 

[melvin]

 

Well I don't know anything about this child of Cebu. But the point about worshipping different saints to get material benedictions fits the thread.

 

One can get material benefits by going straight to the Supreme person and asking for them. He may or may not give them to you but one thing is for sure, no demigod has any benediction to give other then what Krishna gives them to give.

 

So Krishna is the only benefactor rather we know it or not.

 

But whose to judge the soul that wants benedictions from God. We all do. We all are imperfectly motivated in our seeking out the Lord. Some want heaven and some want liberation. We are all selfish.

 

Okay we admit we are selfish. What to do? First thing is to know what the real self is. What is in our real best interest? We must learn to act in the best interest of our real self and not this false identity.

 

One who is selfish in this way will only ask saints or demi-gods or God Himself to give them knowledge about the Lord.

 

Material benedictions including liberation are ultimately all useless so why bother with the demi-gods other than to be respectful.

 

Krishna taught the residents of Vrndavana that He is their only shelter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the Santo Nino de Cebu, Theist, is not a saint. He`s Balaram.

[theist]

 

But the Santo Nino de Cebu, Theist, is not a saint. He`s Balaram.

 

Perhaps but I don't know that. It all news to me. So I have no opinion on that.

[melvin]

I wonder why we are not Balaram conscious. Krsna seems to be always in our minds. That of course pleases God. But what about His brother, Balaram? He,too, deserves our attention. Isn`t it that Balaram is the identical twin of Krsna? How would you feel, Theist, if you have a twin brother who always get the attention although you yourself deserves one? If your twin brother loves you so much would he not be also pleased if you get the same attention your brother does?

Edited July 19, 2009 by melvin

[raghu]

 

 

He goes on talking on this topic and on verses 42-43 he says "Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this."

 

On verse 45 and 46 he says "The Vedas mainly deal with the subject of the three modes of material nature. Rise above these modes, O Arjuna. Be transcendental to all of them. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the Self. All purposes that are served by the small pond can at once be served by the great reservoirs of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them."

 

On verse 49 he says "O Dhananjaya, rid yourself of all fruitive activities by devotional service, and surrender fully to that consciousness. Those who want to enjoy the fruits of their work are misers."

 

Then on verse 52, the verse on current discussion he says "When your intelligence has passed out of the dense forest of delusion, you shall become indifferent to all that has been heard and all that is to be heard."

 

It seems obvious that this verse is referring to being indifferent to the vedas that deal mainly with 3 modes of material nature by knowing who is to be known by them. It's like saying, Tom is a good person. He is also very short. Now if someone simply quotes the sentence saying he is short, then yes, there's no Tom in that sentence. But if one looks at the sentence before that, its very obvious who its referring to.

 

Your conclusions are less than obvious. If you would indulge me, let me address the core misunderstanding upon which your entire argument is based. Your assumption is that Vedas "deal mainly with the three modes of material nature." Using even translations from your own A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, I can prove to you that this assertion is false.

 

First, Bhaktivedanta Swami repeatedly used the term "Vedic" culture NOT in regards to "three modes of material nature" but rather in the sense of the spiritual culture of Krishna worship that he was propagating. For example, in the introduction to Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, he writes about the Gita that it is "the essence of Vedic knowledge." If Vedas deal mainly with the "three modes of material nature," then are you going to say that Gita does also? If the conclusion of the Gita is Krishna worship, and the Gita is the essence of Vedas as Prabhupada claims, then what makes more sense to you - saying that the Vedas deal mainly with the modes of material nature or saying that the Vedas deal mainly with the subject of Vishnu/Krishna?

 

Second, in Gita 15.15 Bhaktivedanta Swami translates Krishna's statement as follows, "I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas." If you agree that Sri Krishna is above the three modes of material nature, and you agree with Sri Krishna that He is known by the Vedas, then how do you reconcile these positions with your idea that the Vedas "deal mainly with the three modes of material nature?" You can surely appreciate that this is inconsistent.

 

Third, please look at Gita 17.23 again with the translation and purport of your very own A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. The translated verse reads, "From the beginning of creation, the three words oḿtat sat were used to indicate the Supreme Absolute Truth. These three symbolic representations were used by brāhmaṇas while chanting the hymns of the Vedas and during sacrifices for the satisfaction of the Supreme." Here is a fairly clear reference to the idea that Veda mantras were chanted for the specific purpose of pleasing the Supreme Lord. Is this dealing with the three modes of material nature? Clearly it is not. If you have any doubt, just read Prabhupada's commentary - "The three words oḿtat sat are uttered in conjunction with the holy name of the Supreme Lord, e.g., oḿtadviṣṇoḥ. Whenever a Vedic hymn or the holy name of the Supreme Lord is uttered, oḿ is added. This is the indication of Vedic literature. These three words are taken from Vedic hymns." Again, this is a clear reference to the idea of the Veda mantras being directly related to worship of Vishnu in Prabhupada's view.

 

Taken together, this is not consistent with the point of view that the Vedas "deal mainly with the three modes of material nature." The essence of the Vedas is not the "three modes of material nature," and consequently verse 2.52 is not talking about becoming "indifferent to the Vedas."

 

The real sense of the words "traiguNyaviShayA vedAH" in verse 2.45 is that one should not be misled by the apparent meaning of Veda mantras. Because in the Vedas it is often misunderstood that attainment of heavenly pleasures is the goal, people are often not aware of the actual, hidden, or esoteric meaning which deals with Vishnu. That the Vedas have an apparent or superficial meaning and a deeper, esoteric meaning is revealed in the Aitareya Aaranyaka 2.4.3 which states that the devas take delight in the hidden sense of the Vedas.

 

Thus, there is no need to become indifferent to the Vedas, as the Vedas really deal with the subject of Vishnu, assuming you believe what the Gita has to say about this.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

If Vedas deal mainly with the "three modes of material nature," then are you going to say that Gita does also?

 

The second statement does not naturally follow from the first. I believe the points they are trying to make (they may correct me if I am wrong) are:

 

1) The Vedas deal mainly with the three modes of material nature, and the karma kanda rituals for fruitive results.

 

2) The essence of the Vedas is the Vedanta. (Essence in no way implies direct connection with the bulk or main content of the Vedas.)

 

3) The Gita is further the essence of the Upanishads (Vedanta), thus also the essence of all Vedic knowledge.

 

4) The Vedas deal primarily with karma kanda, where as Vedanta and the Gita deal with jnana-kanda. The purpose of karma kanda is to come to the point of knowledge (jnana kanda). So the aim of the Vedas is to bring one to knowledge, though the bulk of the texts may not focus specifically on that (instead focussing on the indirect karma kanda process of purification).

 

5. Jnana kanda is essentially for the purpose of coming to the path of upasana kanda, or bhakti marga. So the essence of Gita is further refined to bhakti, making bhakti the supreme essence of all Vedic knowledge.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

2.Asato Ma Sat Gamaya

Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

Mrityor Maamritam Gamaya

 

Om-Let us be led from the unreal to the Real

From darkness to the Light

From mortality to Eternity

　

Vedas how can I ever be indifferent to it?

 

What would those brahman’s think, spending their life time reciting them, learning and preserving them, for what?

 

So that we can be indifferent to it!

 

Should we neglect the tree that gives us the fruits?

 

Would a PhD professor be indifferent to kindergarten to high school to university?

 

If we have little or no knowledge of Vedas or its purpose we should not comment on it.

 

By all means hang on to the fruit we like but don’t try and chop that tree.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[theist]

 

By all means hang on to the fruit we like but don’t try and chop that tree.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

A dramatic post Ganshprasad but the philosophical point is lost in the sentimentality. Religion without philosophy is sentimentalism. We need both.

 

No one said anything about chopping down the tree for God's sake. The tree still exists for others who need to get the fruit. The analogy breaks down here because after tasting the fruit of the Holy Names one no longer needs to seek any other fruit. No need to return to the tree personally. But like I said the tree still stands for others who are to water and prune the tree and harvest it's fruit.

 

There will always be more people wanting to go to heaven or get rich without acknowledging their eternal dependence on the Supreme Person, the one without a second, Sri Krishna so don't worry.

 

You end your post with a Jai Sri krishna yet you are arguing against His very words in the Bhagavad-gita. Does that make sense to you?

 

Please read this post from Dasomi to clear your confusion.

 

The translations quoted are from Bhagavad gita as it is.

 

The verse above is text number 52.Krishna started convertation on this topic starting at text 39 where he says "Thus far I have declared to you the analytical knowledge of sankhya philosophy. Now listen to the knowledge of yoga whereby one works without fruitive result. O son of Prtha, when you act by such intelligence, you can free yourself from the bondage of works."

 

He goes on talking on this topic and on verses 42-43 he says "Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this."

 

On verse 45 and 46 he says "The Vedas mainly deal with the subject of the three modes of material nature. Rise above these modes, O Arjuna. Be transcendental to all of them. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the Self. All purposes that are served by the small pond can at once be served by the great reservoirs of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them."

 

On verse 49 he says "O Dhananjaya, rid yourself of all fruitive activities by devotional service, and surrender fully to that consciousness. Those who want to enjoy the fruits of their work are misers."

 

Then on verse 52, the verse on current discussion he says "When your intelligence has passed out of the dense forest of delusion, you shall become indifferent to all that has been heard and all that is to be heard."

 

It seems obvious that this verse is referring to being indifferent to the vedas that deal mainly with 3 modes of material nature by knowing who is to be known by them. It's like saying, Tom is a good person. He is also very short. Now if someone simply quotes the sentence saying he is short, then yes, there's no Tom in that sentence. But if one looks at the sentence before that, its very obvious who its referring to.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Theist

 

 

A dramatic post Ganshprasad .

 

None more than the thread header it self,Theist, far for me to suggest to you how to word it but when you put it the way you did, It is bound to have a response.

Vedas speaks in many level of truth, from mundane to highest, problem here is you are trying to paint picture of Vedas to be just mundane and therefore one can be indifferent to it, and that is far from the truth.

　

　

 

The analogy breaks down here because after tasting the fruit of the Holy Names one no longer needs to seek any other fruit. No need to return to the tree personally. But like I said the tree still stands for others who are to water and prune the tree and harvest it's fruit.

 

If one has developed the highest taste that does not follow he/she would become indifferent to that which showed the path, just as PhD professor would not knock the pre schooling.

 

 

There will always be more people wanting to go to heaven or get rich without acknowledging their eternal dependence on the Supreme Person, the one without a second, Sri Krishna so don't worry.

 

Oh I am not worried but what you are pre supposing is that everyone who so follows Vedas do not acknowledge the supreme, now that is news to me.

 

Perhaps you can tell us what is better, to obtain riches by dharmic way or build big empires in the name of the lord, any which way, by hook or crook?

 

 

You end your post with a Jai Sri krishna yet you are arguing against His very words in the Bhagavad-gita. Does that make sense to you?

 

No sir I am not arguing against Lord Krishna, as it is already pointed earlier Shree Krishna has not said for anyone, to be indifferent to Vedas, infect he says I am to be known by all Vedas b.g 15.5 further he says in chapter 16

Therefore, let the scripture be your authority in determining what should be done and what should not be done. You should perform your duty following the scriptural injunction. (16.24)

 

Now you tell me how can you ignore what Lord Krishna says?

When we become indifferent to Vedas then we act on our own whims, cheat, lie or what ever in the name of end justify the means.

 

 

Please read this post from Dasomi to clear your confusion.

 

Yes I have, nothing I have read tell me to be indifferent to Vedas.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[theist]

 

None more than the thread header it self,Theist, far for me to suggest to you how to word it but when you put it the way you did, It is bound to have a response.

 

 

Vedas speaks in many level of truth, from mundane to highest, problem here is you are trying to paint picture of Vedas to be just mundane and therefore one can be indifferent to it, and that is far from the truth.

 

Parts of the vedas are mundane. Mundane referring to 'worldly'. They regulate worldly life in a way that is spiritually progressive so in that way the purpose of the vedas is essentially spiritual.

 

But understand this point, IT IS KRISHNA WHO TELLS ARJUNA TO BECOME INDIFFERENT AND NOT ME. Krishna is the goal of vedanta. Once you reach the goal you no longer need the ladder. Of course not everyone reaches the goal at the same time so to keep the ladder in place is necessary. I am not advocating the kicking away of the ladder. But I am saying it is a mistake for one to cling to the ladder when he has already climbed to the top.

 

　

　

 

 

 

If one has developed the highest taste that does not follow he/she would become indifferent to that which showed the path, just as PhD professor would not knock the pre schooling.

I highly doubt that a PHd professor spends much time sentimentaly pinning of his days in kindergarten. Of course he does not bemoan those days but they now have no more relevance for him personally.

 

 

 

 

Oh I am not worried but what you are pre supposing is that everyone who so follows Vedas do not acknowledge the supreme, now that is news to me.

Acknowleding the Supreme is good. Acknowledging the Supreme person is much better. And better still is total surrender to Him in love.

 

 

Perhaps you can tell us what is better, to obtain riches by dharmic way or build big empires in the name of the lord, any which way, by hook or crook?

dharmic way is best. But Krishna is telling us to surrender to Him uterrly and quit building castles made of sand here in the material world.

 

 

 

 

No sir I am not arguing against Lord Krishna, as it is already pointed earlier Shree Krishna has not said for anyone, to be indifferent to Vedas, infect he says I am to be known by all Vedas b.g 15.5 further he says in chapter 16

Yes He is to be known by the vedas and focused upon exclusively with love and devotion. Edited July 20, 2009 by theist

[raghu]

 

The second statement does not naturally follow from the first.

 

Let me restate it another way. If the conclusion of the Gita is Vishnu (or Krishna), and the Gita represents the essence of the Vedas, then the conclusion of the Vedas is also Vishnu. Do you agree with this?

 

 

I believe the points they are trying to make (they may correct me if I am wrong) are:

 

1) The Vedas deal mainly with the three modes of material nature, and the karma kanda rituals for fruitive results.

 

Yet it is by the Vedas that Sri Krishna is known (Gita 15.15). Thus, I would have to disagree with your wording of the above. Can Sri Krishna be known by the modes of material nature? Can Sri Krishna be known by rituals whose purpose is the acquisition of material comforts?

 

You may feel that this is splitting hairs. But since Theist is advocating "being indifferent to the Vedas," it seems only reasonable to examine the underlying basis for this view, viz the idea that Vedas "deal primarily with karma kanda/modes of material nature." Is it wise to be teaching people with unregulated habits to become indifferent to the very scriptures by which they can understand the main goal of life - Vishnu? Is that not what you would call... sastra-ninda?

 

As I have indicated, using sources that both you and I accept, the conclusion of the Vedas is not the fruitive activity. On the contrary, the Vedas contain mantras that are used to worship Vishnu (also stated in ACBSP's commentary). This is not consistent with the position that Vedas "deal mainly with the modes of material nature."

 

Rituals whose goal is the acquisition of material goods cannot teach one about the ultimate goal of life which is beyond such mundane pursuits. The Vedas do not deal with fruitive activity but rather with rituals for the worship of Vishnu which are wrongly interpreted to be for the acquisition of fruitive results. Arjuna was not being advised to be "indifferent to the Vedas." He was being advised to be indifferent to the idea of rituals for the purpose of fruitive activity. This is in keeping with the context of his objections to fighting which were also based on materialistic grounds. This is also in keeping with the ideas presented in the Gita 15th and 17th chapters which indicate that Vishnu is really the essence of the Vedas and is known by and worshipped by the mantras of the Vedas.

[theist]

To be indifferent to something does not mean to be against that thing.

 

 

Main Entry:in·dif·fer·ent 1: marked by impartiality : unbiased2 a: that does not matter one way or the other b: of no importance or value one way or the other3 a: marked by no special liking for or dislike of something <indifferent about which task he was given> b: marked by a lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern for something : apathetic <indifferent to suffering and poverty>4: being neither excessive nor inadequate : moderate <hills of indifferent size>5 a: being neither good nor bad : mediocre <does indifferent work> b: being neither right nor wrong6: characterized by lack of active quality : neutral <an indifferent chemical>7 a: not differentiated <indifferent tissues of the human body> b: capable of development in more than one direction ; especially : not yet embryologically determined

[theist]

JNdas, it is very nice to see you posting here a little more frequently even amongst your busy schedule. Hope you can keep it up.

[AncientMariner]

 

I know I am going to get in trouble for asking this but....

 

where in the Bhagavata is it stated that Jada Bharata was "only interested in chanting Hare Krishna?"

 

I was attempting to summarize the story of Jada Bharata and how despite all the attempts of his family members to transform him into the perfect vedic expert and brahmana he artfully dodged them and was continuously executing devotional service by thinking of Krsna. I do not know if he was chanting Hare Krishna mantra or not so I apologize if you think I was advocating some sort of Hare Krishna sectarianism that offends you as that was not my intent. I was merely summarizing the story to the best of my memory and was not trying to provide a hyper-technical, intellectually obese explanation of the story.

 

I did just read in one of the purports of the Jada Bharata story and it mentions Srila Madhavendra Puri who said "O regulative principles of karma-kanda, please excuse me. I cannot follow all these regulative principles, for I am fully engaged in devotional service." He expressed his desire to sit somewhere beneath a tree and continue chanting Hare Krsna, maha-mantra so maybe when I said Jada Bharata was only interested in chanting Hare Krsna I was thinking of this fellow. But I also did say in post that Jada Bharata was interested in thinking of Krsna so I don't know what is the difference between that and chanting but apparently it triggers some sort of sectarian defense mechanism in you and I apologize for that. Srimad Bhagavatam says "Within he was always thinking of the lotus feet of the Lord and chanting the Lord's glories, which save one from the bondage of fruitive action. In this way he saved himself from the onslaught of nondevotee association" SB Canto 5 ch. 9 text 3. So apparently he was interested in some sort of chanting but I do not know if it was Hare Krishna mantra or not but again I apologize if again if I offended you on a sectarian level or if you think I was misrepresenting the story of Jada Bharata as I personally have no sectarian affiliation myself, I just read Prabhupada's books from time to time.

 

You may disagree with Prabhupada's purports but Prabhupada mentions these concepts quite often. He says "When Maharaja Bharata took birth as a brahmana, he was not very intereseted in the duties of a brahmana, but within remained a pure Vaisnava, always thinking of the lotus feet of the Lord. As advised in Bhagavad Gita: man-mana bhava mad-bhakto mad-yaji mam namaskuru. This is the only process by which one can be saved from the danger of repeated birth and death."

 

And in regards to Jada Bharata Prabhupada says "As Jada Bharata, Bharata Maharaja was always engaged in devotional service within his mind. Since he had executed the regulative principles continously for three lives, he was not interested in continuing to execute them, although his brahmana father wanted him to do so."

 

So unless you feel I have misrepresented Prabhupada's interpretation of the story of Jada Bharata then your real issues are with things Prabhupada said and not an issue with me as I was only reciting a summary of the story as I remembered it from Prabhupada's books.

 

From my reading of the story there does seem to be ample evidence that Jada Bharata did become indifferent to the rituals of the Vedas so I think the story is worthy of mentioning in this thread but who knows for sure.

Edited July 21, 2009 by AncientMariner

[AncientMariner]

 

The title of this posting is "Becoming indifferent to the vedas."

 

Yet, the Gita verse quoted above says nothing about becoming "indifferent to the vedas."

 

If someone feels I am in error, may they please point out where in the Sanskrit anything about being "indifferent to the Vedas" is mentioned.

 

 

I don't know, but the purport says there are good examples in the lives of the great devotees of the Lord who became indifferent to the rituals of the Vedas simply by devotional service to the Lord. I love the stories of those kinds of devotees because so many Vedic scholars endlessly engage in the same old endless debates about the Vedas over and over but these fortunate avadhuta souls seem to be completely beyond that mentality and free from the bickering. Reading about these great souls is truly a pleasure and it is also funny how they trick even their own uptight relatives. Jada Bharata is the greatest story in the Vedas along with Lord Rsabadheva in my opinion.

[AncientMariner]

 

To be indifferent to something does not mean to be against that thing.

 

 

Main Entry:in·dif·fer·ent 1: marked by impartiality : unbiased2 a: that does not matter one way or the other b: of no importance or value one way or the other3 a: marked by no special liking for or dislike of something <indifferent about which task he was given> b: marked by a lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern for something : apathetic <indifferent to suffering and poverty>4: being neither excessive nor inadequate : moderate <hills of indifferent size>5 a: being neither good nor bad : mediocre <does indifferent work> b: being neither right nor wrong6: characterized by lack of active quality : neutral <an indifferent chemical>7 a: not differentiated <indifferent tissues of the human body> b: capable of development in more than one direction ; especially : not yet embryologically determined

 

 

Good point. It almost seems like some of the responses you are getting on this thread the people are having some sort of negative emotional response to the word indifferent. I think the points you have brought up in this thread are really interesting and this has been one of the more interesting discussions I have seen in awhile. Of course anything having to do with the avadhutas I find to be especially interesting and the avadhutas seem to be the embodiment of becoming indifferent to the rituals of the Vedas.

[Dasosmi]

 

Let me restate it another way. If the conclusion of the Gita is Vishnu (or Krishna), and the Gita represents the essence of the Vedas, then the conclusion of the Vedas is also Vishnu. Do you agree with this?

 

Yet it is by the Vedas that Sri Krishna is known (Gita 15.15). Thus, I would have to disagree with your wording of the above. Can Sri Krishna be known by the modes of material nature? Can Sri Krishna be known by rituals whose purpose is the acquisition of material comforts?

 

You may feel that this is splitting hairs. But since Theist is advocating "being indifferent to the Vedas," it seems only reasonable to examine the underlying basis for this view, viz the idea that Vedas "deal primarily with karma kanda/modes of material nature." Is it wise to be teaching people with unregulated habits to become indifferent to the very scriptures by which they can understand the main goal of life - Vishnu? Is that not what you would call... sastra-ninda?

 

As I have indicated, using sources that both you and I accept, the conclusion of the Vedas is not the fruitive activity. On the contrary, the Vedas contain mantras that are used to worship Vishnu (also stated in ACBSP's commentary). This is not consistent with the position that Vedas "deal mainly with the modes of material nature."

 

Rituals whose goal is the acquisition of material goods cannot teach one about the ultimate goal of life which is beyond such mundane pursuits. The Vedas do not deal with fruitive activity but rather with rituals for the worship of Vishnu which are wrongly interpreted to be for the acquisition of fruitive results. Arjuna was not being advised to be "indifferent to the Vedas." He was being advised to be indifferent to the idea of rituals for the purpose of fruitive activity. This is in keeping with the context of his objections to fighting which were also based on materialistic grounds. This is also in keeping with the ideas presented in the Gita 15th and 17th chapters which indicate that Vishnu is really the essence of the Vedas and is known by and worshipped by the mantras of the Vedas.

 

Hare Krishna, Jahnava Nitai Prabhuji is highly qualified to answers your questions. Some thoughts crossed my mind reading your statements so I decided to share them. Please forgive any errors.

 

The conclusion and the entire contents are not always 100% the same.

 

Vedas knowing Krishna and the reader of the Vedas understanding Krishna are 2 different things. Do we understand the Vedas 100%? Krishna can not be known by anything except His own desire to be known to the individual. Therefore not only is he the greatest but he is also the smallest because simply based on our sincerity, he will reveal himself to us no matter how smart or dumb we may be.

 

 

 

ye yatha mam prapadyante

tams tathaiva bhajamy aham

 

 

 

 

tesam satata-yuktanam

bhajatam priti-purvakam

dadami buddhi-yogam tam

yena mam upayanti te

 

 

 

Vedas certainly contain plenty of pages on activities in different modes. It would be sastra-ninda if anyone is denying the authority of Vedas. The point is simple. Once you achieve Krishna, then you become indifferent to the Vedas because you have reached the goal. If you reach your destination, the address you scribbled down would be of no use or harm to you. Although you may choose to hold on to it. Realised souls may act on the level ordinary people can relate to.

 

The Vedas deal "MAINLY" with the 3 modes. Yes they contain plenty of mantras to worship Vishnu. The conclusion and the entire contents of Vedas are not 100% the same. As you have smartly pointed out:"Because in the Vedas it is often misunderstood that attainment of heavenly pleasures is the goal, people are often not aware of the actual, hidden, or esoteric meaning which deals with Vishnu." So therefore, let us not get caught up in confusion and accept the essenes..Bhagavad Gita, which clearly tells us to surrender to Krishna.

 

sarva-dharman parityajya

mam ekam saranam vraja

 

Sripad Sankacharya says:

sarvo panishado gavo

dogdha gopala nandanah

partho vatsah sudhir bhokta

dugdham gita amritam mahat

(Gita-mahatmya 6)

(6) All the Upanishads are the cows, the one who milks the cows is Krishna, Arjuna (Partha) is the calf. Men of purified intellect are the enjoyers; the milk is the great nectar of the Gita.The only scripture is the song of the son of Devaki. The only deity is the son of Devaki. The only mantra is His Names. The only action is the service of That Deity.

 

ekam sastram devaki-putra-gitam

eko devo devaki-putra eva

eko mantras tasya namani yani

karmapy ekam tasya devasya seva

 

In this present day, people are very much eager to have one scripture, one God, one religion, and one occupation. Therefore, ekam sastram devaki-putra-gitam: let there be one scripture only, one common scripture for the whole world--Bhagavad-gita. Eko devo devaki-putra eva: let there be one God for the whole world--Sri Krsna. Eko mantras tasya namani: and one hymn, one mantra, one prayer--the chanting of His name

[raghu]

Namaskar. Again your response is somewhat verbose and full of digressions. I will respond to just those parts that are relevant here.

 

 

The conclusion and the entire contents are not always 100% the same.

 

 

If you truly believe, as most Hare Krishnas do, that the Lord is non-different from His glories, then you must accept the conclusion that the above statement by you is incorrect and unpalatable.

 

If Vedas glorify the Lord, then there is no question of distinguishing the Vedas from the Lord. If you claim that Vedas glorify goals other than Vishnu, then you are falling into the trap of the veda-vAda-rataH.

 

 

Vedas knowing Krishna and the reader of the Vedas understanding Krishna are 2 different things.

 

And similarly, actually conclusion of Vedas and misunderstood conclusion of Vedas are two different things.

 

Right View: The goal of Vedas is knowing Sri Vishnu

 

Wrong View: Vedas are mainly concerned with the three modes of material nature/fruitive activity.

 

These two views are inconsistent and incompatible.

 

 

Vedas certainly contain plenty of pages on activities in different modes. It would be sastra-ninda if anyone is denying the authority of Vedas.

 

Then perhaps you did not read the first posting of this thread. It is entitled, "Becoming indifferent to the vedas."

 

Certainly that is sastra-ninda. If one posted an article on "becoming indifferent to the Bhagavatam" would you accept such a conclusion as valid?

 

 

The point is simple. Once you achieve Krishna, then you become indifferent to the Vedas because you have reached the goal. If you reach your destination, the address you scribbled down would be of no use or harm to you.

 

This is classic, mayavadi, utilitarian logic. Just as the mayavadis argue that bhakti is merely a means to an end (liberation) and can be dispensed with once the goal of liberation is attained, so too you argue that one can become "indifferent" to the Vedas once one has attained Sri Krishna. If you disagree with the former, then you cannot possibly disagree with the latter. That would be a double standard.

 

 

The Vedas deal "MAINLY" with the 3 modes. Yes they contain plenty of mantras to worship Vishnu.

 

This is self-contradictory.

 

 

The conclusion and the entire contents of Vedas are not 100% the same.

 

And this is like saying that the glorification of the Lord and the Lord Himself are not the same.

 

Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe that the Bhagavata Purana is the Lord Himself. That this is so is written in Jiva Gosvami's Tattva-Sandarbha. Do you accept it? Because by your logic, I can also say that there is material in the Bhagavata that does not directly concern the Lord, such as descriptions of varnashrama dharma, dynasties of great kings, etc and thus (based on your logic) conclude that the essence of the Bhagavatam is different from the contents of the Bhagavatam. Do you accept it? Why or why not?

 

 

As you have smartly pointed out:"Because in the Vedas it is often misunderstood that attainment of heavenly pleasures is the goal, people are often not aware of the actual, hidden, or esoteric meaning which deals with Vishnu."

 

And therefore, the subject matter of the Vedas is *not* the three modes of material nature or fruitive activity. Rather it is Vishnu only which is the subject, and people only misunderstand the Vedas to be concerned with something else.

 

This also happens to be the view of Sri Madhvacharya who writes this in his Gita commentary. Sri Madhva does not accept the idea of "karma-kanda" or "fruitive activity" as the main gist of the Vedas. And why should he? Since that position is not supported by the Bhagavad-gita at all.