Digest Number 1636

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, wrote:

 

Sorry for the delayed response. The internet had to take a back seat to

Ganesh Chaturthi/Rshi Panchami.

 

> Dear Jaldharji,

> Please give us the reference where it is stated that " Swami

> Vivekananda did

> not read Vedas " . None of the authentic books published by Ramakrishna

> Math & Mission say so to the best of my information.

 

Just so you understand where I'm coming from, I'm a Gujarati Smarta

Brahmana. As a boy I learned shuklayajurveda from my guruji whose name

was Jagannath Shastriji (in America of all places) in the traditional

manner. Although due to the circumstances I didn't learn the whole thing,

just enough for my nitya karmas and doing pujas, kathas etc., what I

did learn was solid. Even now 20+ years later, I can perfectly recall all

the rks without looking at a book. This is what Ramesh earlier refered to

as smarana and this is what I mean by Vedic studies.

 

Obviously Narendranath Datta did not do that kind of study for the simple

reason that he was a Bengali Kayastha and they do not have the adhikara to

study Vedas. Kayasthas did take part in other types of Sanskrit

scholarship and the welltodo Datta family had many Brahmana friends. And

traditional Indian culture is suffused with the spirit of the Vedas. But

as I'm sure you'll agree, a basic familiarity with a subject does not

equal formal study and certainly does not qualify one as an expert.

 

After a basic primary education at home, Narendra was sent to the

Metropolitan Institution in Calcutta, an English medium school. Like

other colonial schools its purpose was to create " brown sahibs " though it

was a little better than others of its class as it was atleast run by

Indians and not out and out hostile to Hinduism. He learnt some sanskrit

there (according to the western method.) but no Vedas.

 

From there he proceeded to the Assembly College (a church run institution)

to study law. As a young man he became involved in the Brahmo Samaj a

weird Christian-Hindu hybrid. They did believe in some sort of " Veda " but

nothing a Hindu would recognize as such.

 

It was only after he came under the influence of Ramakrishna that he began

really learn about Hinduism and for that I give him great credit. So many

people of his time and place ended up as Christians or atheists. However

enthusiasm is also not equal to expertise.

 

The reason I bring up all this background and indeed the reason I made the

observation about Vivekananda in the first place is that it was said that.

 

" There are foolish people who compare the Shiva Linga with a phallus. It

has been rubbished by none other than the great Swami Vivekananda by quoting

the Vedas. "

 

Sorry, here's a bit more background. In 1899, there was a congress of

" orientalists " in Paris which Vivekananda attended. One delegate made the

remark that the Shivalingam and in response Vivekananda attempted to show

that the linga in fact is derived from the yupa of Vedic ritual.

 

What is a yupa? In the vedokta shrauta yajnas, one or more animals are

sacrificed. A wooden post or yupastambha is set up at the edge of the

yajnabhumi and the yajamana and his wife worship it with certain suktas.

Then the pashus are tied up there until they are ready to be sacrificed.

 

Now what does this have to do with a shivalinga? Even in the parts of

India where animal sacrifices are still made (according to tantrokta not

vedokta rites,) they are not tied up to a linga. The suktas addressed to

the yupa are for Indra and Vishnu not for Rudra or any other Vedic

manifestation of Shiva bhagavan. The primary rite associated with lingas

today is abhisheka. The shatarudriya sukta used for abhisheka have no

connection to the yupa. While for Bengalis of that era and I suppose

most Indians today the Vedic yajnas belong to the distant past, in

Southern India they are still a living albeit small tradition. In this

decade somayajnas have been performed atleast twice, in Kerala and

Andhra Pradesh and there are a number of nitya agnihotris. Yet none of

them have any tradition of equating the shivalinga with the yupa. It is

difficult for anyone at all knowledgeable about Vedic rituals to

understand such a claim.

 

So why did he do it? The missionaries backed by the learned scholarship

of the day had long used the idea of " phallic symbols " to argue that

Hinduism was " primitive " and " immoral. " Now my rejoinder to that is " Yes

there is an erotic component to the symbolism of Shiva-Shakti. What of

it? You, I, even the pope were all born from a lingam and yoni. What is

so primitive about that? Isn't seeing immorality in the most basic essence of

our natures a symptom of a diseased mind? And just because we acknowledge

the sacredness of sexuality doesn't mean we are obsessed with it like you

are. The lingam is no more a phallic symbol than your cross is a symbol

of the Roman justice system. "

 

But Vivekananda couldn't make that argument. He was a man of the

Westernized babu class so he essentially shared the puritanical missionary

outlook. To resolve the contradiction between what is in Hinduism and

what he thought ought to be, he invented this half-baked explanation

instead. And this tendency towards wishful thinking instead of facts

infects much of the Dharmic praja today ultimately causing some of them to

waste their time with Tejo Mahalaya and the like.

 

> From

> Veeraswamy Krishnaraj

> Vivekananda is imbued in and soaking wet with Vedas, so much so that

> you cann't say where Vivekananda ends and Vedas begin.? Here is one

> example. There are 523 instances wherein Swami Vivekananda speaks

> about the Greatness of Vedas.

 

If I talk about the greatness of Hrtik Roshan 523 times, does that make me

a Bollywood star?

 

I applaud Vivekananda for rescuing so many of our assimilated brothers and

sisters and getting them excited about our beautiful and profound

traditions. They will honor him best by ditching all second-hand

interpretators whether white or brown and learning about the Jnananidhi

Bhagavan Mahadeva from the source.

 

--

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar

[Guest guest]

Dear Jaldhar H. Vyasji,

namaskar! Thank you for your detailed explanations of Vivekananda's carreer, who

had not studied vedas and metioned shiva linga as yupa and not as the genitals.

As for your view that it is the genitals, I would not say you are all wrong in

your interpretaion.In my view, at the most you are 20 percent right whereas

Vivekananda is 80 percent right.Why so?

1.You are a priest and he is a prophet. Priests like to refer to books and

prophets like to experience the facts themselves. The prophets are always higher

than the priests who have no experience but only book knowledge.

2.Being a sanyasi,I cannot imagine he did not know the true meaning of the

linga.Since shiva linga is the main inspiration for the sanyasis. Please know

that Shiva linga is not experienced at the genitals but is experienced at the

top of the head after practising brahmacharya dharma for a long time.In fact,

only after a person completes his karmayoga and gets the darshan of the

compeletion of the story of Sati and shiva, then one gets the darshan of Shiva

linga.You may have read how the jyotir lingas appear only after the body parts

of Sati falls along, part by part, while Shiva weeping carries her dead body.

From this you will see that sex and Shiva linga is in many ways opposite.When

you control sex you get the darshan of shiva linga, not by following sex desire,

but by its control.In fact why brahmacharya dharma is needed to travel on the

spiritual path, which is Shiva's path?

3.To substantiate through my general knowlege that Yupa is the origin of Shiva

linga, I will site one example . When the animal is sacrificed or beheaded on

the yupa or maulo with the head tied to it, the body of the animal falls down

and the head hangs to the yupa.That positon with the head hanging on the yupa is

also in my view, Shiva linga.As mentioned above shiva linga is experienced at

the head and not at the genitals and in fact by rejecting the body with the

genitals. Then your attention is only at your head, which is tied to the

universal person. Our experience of that universal nirakar purush or person is

only a little portion of that universal space which is seen at the centre of the

small circle of the mind known as the jalahari, bhaga or yoni whatever you call.

The circle of the mindstuff is the yoni or jalahari and the Shiva linga at its

centre is our soul or Atma. Where is the role of the gentitals here.Thus in my

view, you are only 20 percent correct and Vivekananda is 80 percent correct.

thank you,

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

 

, " Jaldhar H. Vyas " <jaldhar

wrote:

>

> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, wrote:

>

> Sorry for the delayed response. The internet had to take a back seat to

> Ganesh Chaturthi/Rshi Panchami.

>

> > Dear Jaldharji,

> > Please give us the reference where it is stated that " Swami

> > Vivekananda did

> > not read Vedas " . None of the authentic books published by Ramakrishna

> > Math & Mission say so to the best of my information.

>

> Just so you understand where I'm coming from, I'm a Gujarati Smarta

> Brahmana. As a boy I learned shuklayajurveda from my guruji whose name

> was Jagannath Shastriji (in America of all places) in the traditional

> manner. Although due to the circumstances I didn't learn the whole thing,

> just enough for my nitya karmas and doing pujas, kathas etc., what I

> did learn was solid. Even now 20+ years later, I can perfectly recall all

> the rks without looking at a book. This is what Ramesh earlier refered to

> as smarana and this is what I mean by Vedic studies.

>

> Obviously Narendranath Datta did not do that kind of study for the simple

> reason that he was a Bengali Kayastha and they do not have the adhikara to

> study Vedas. Kayasthas did take part in other types of Sanskrit

> scholarship and the welltodo Datta family had many Brahmana friends. And

> traditional Indian culture is suffused with the spirit of the Vedas. But

> as I'm sure you'll agree, a basic familiarity with a subject does not

> equal formal study and certainly does not qualify one as an expert.

>

> After a basic primary education at home, Narendra was sent to the

> Metropolitan Institution in Calcutta, an English medium school. Like

> other colonial schools its purpose was to create " brown sahibs " though it

> was a little better than others of its class as it was atleast run by

> Indians and not out and out hostile to Hinduism. He learnt some sanskrit

> there (according to the western method.) but no Vedas.

>

> From there he proceeded to the Assembly College (a church run institution)

> to study law. As a young man he became involved in the Brahmo Samaj a

> weird Christian-Hindu hybrid. They did believe in some sort of " Veda " but

> nothing a Hindu would recognize as such.

>

> It was only after he came under the influence of Ramakrishna that he began

> really learn about Hinduism and for that I give him great credit. So many

> people of his time and place ended up as Christians or atheists. However

> enthusiasm is also not equal to expertise.

>

> The reason I bring up all this background and indeed the reason I made the

> observation about Vivekananda in the first place is that it was said that.

>

> " There are foolish people who compare the Shiva Linga with a phallus. It

> has been rubbished by none other than the great Swami Vivekananda by quoting

> the Vedas. "

>

> Sorry, here's a bit more background. In 1899, there was a congress of

> " orientalists " in Paris which Vivekananda attended. One delegate made the

> remark that the Shivalingam and in response Vivekananda attempted to show

> that the linga in fact is derived from the yupa of Vedic ritual.

>

> What is a yupa? In the vedokta shrauta yajnas, one or more animals are

> sacrificed. A wooden post or yupastambha is set up at the edge of the

> yajnabhumi and the yajamana and his wife worship it with certain suktas.

> Then the pashus are tied up there until they are ready to be sacrificed.

>

> Now what does this have to do with a shivalinga? Even in the parts of

> India where animal sacrifices are still made (according to tantrokta not

> vedokta rites,) they are not tied up to a linga. The suktas addressed to

> the yupa are for Indra and Vishnu not for Rudra or any other Vedic

> manifestation of Shiva bhagavan. The primary rite associated with lingas

> today is abhisheka. The shatarudriya sukta used for abhisheka have no

> connection to the yupa. While for Bengalis of that era and I suppose

> most Indians today the Vedic yajnas belong to the distant past, in

> Southern India they are still a living albeit small tradition. In this

> decade somayajnas have been performed atleast twice, in Kerala and

> Andhra Pradesh and there are a number of nitya agnihotris. Yet none of

> them have any tradition of equating the shivalinga with the yupa. It is

> difficult for anyone at all knowledgeable about Vedic rituals to

> understand such a claim.

>

> So why did he do it? The missionaries backed by the learned scholarship

> of the day had long used the idea of " phallic symbols " to argue that

> Hinduism was " primitive " and " immoral. " Now my rejoinder to that is " Yes

> there is an erotic component to the symbolism of Shiva-Shakti. What of

> it? You, I, even the pope were all born from a lingam and yoni. What is

> so primitive about that? Isn't seeing immorality in the most basic essence of

> our natures a symptom of a diseased mind? And just because we acknowledge

> the sacredness of sexuality doesn't mean we are obsessed with it like you

> are. The lingam is no more a phallic symbol than your cross is a symbol

> of the Roman justice system. "

>

> But Vivekananda couldn't make that argument. He was a man of the

> Westernized babu class so he essentially shared the puritanical missionary

> outlook. To resolve the contradiction between what is in Hinduism and

> what he thought ought to be, he invented this half-baked explanation

> instead. And this tendency towards wishful thinking instead of facts

> infects much of the Dharmic praja today ultimately causing some of them to

> waste their time with Tejo Mahalaya and the like.

>

> > From

> > Veeraswamy Krishnaraj

> > Vivekananda is imbued in and soaking wet with Vedas, so much so that

> > you cann't say where Vivekananda ends and Vedas begin.? Here is one

> > example. There are 523 instances wherein Swami Vivekananda speaks

> > about the Greatness of Vedas.

>

> If I talk about the greatness of Hrtik Roshan 523 times, does that make me

> a Bollywood star?

>

> I applaud Vivekananda for rescuing so many of our assimilated brothers and

> sisters and getting them excited about our beautiful and profound

> traditions. They will honor him best by ditching all second-hand

> interpretators whether white or brown and learning about the Jnananidhi

> Bhagavan Mahadeva from the source.

>

> --

> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar

>