mamsa preedhayi namaha"dear sujata , namaskar!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maa adi_shakti!

 

Thank you much for that splendid interpretation. Your

immense knowledge never ceases to amaze me!

 

The vedas are full of yajnas that require animal

sacrifices. There is great controversy over this and

like you pointed out, the same thing can mean several

things- eg "aja" can mean goat, rice husks that are 7

years old, cosmic spirit etc. So when "aja" is to be

sacrificed does it refer to goat or to rice husks-

probably depends on what level the performer is at.

There are lots of reference where beef eating is

advocated, eg- Chandoygapanishad, there is a reference

to eating beef with other stuff in order to get

progeny of certain attributes, of course this may not

be taken literally.

 

About 500 years back, the great Saint Appaya Dikshita

performed a ashwemedha yajna and sacrificed 17 horses.

So the pundits came and asked him how he could commit

such a crime; then Appaya dikshitar summoned the

spirits of the horses, which then told the pundits

that because of the sacrifice they were able to ascend

heaven straightway. So go figure!

 

yogaman

 

 

 

"adi_shakthi16 <adi_shakthi16"

<adi_shakthi16

Re: mamsa preedhayi namaha"dear sujata ,

namaskar!

yes! indeed! in the sanskrit language , the same word

can have

multiple meanings depending on the context and the way

it is spelled

or uttered ! you must have heard of sandhi-vicched!

the grammatical

practice of splitting words...

the ordinary meaning of the word 'mamsa' is meat-that!

 

but thee esoteric meaning of the word as used by

tantric practioner

is different

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

hey yoga child! thank u, dear!

 

but, dear heart, do not build my ego up! right now it is the size of

mount everest ; i am trying to reduce it to th size of mustard seed!

He He He!!! HA HA HA ! LOL

 

MAY I ALSO RETURN THE COMPLIMENT, PL?

 

yes what you say about 'animal sacrifices' in vedas is true- 100%

but, here is a wonderful explanation on the subject by none other

than our kanch periyavaal..

 

" Animal Sacrifice in the Age of Kali

(HinduDharma: The Vedas)

 

Receive pages from Hindu Dharma in your email

 

An argument runs thus: In the eons gone by mankind possessed high

ideals and noble character. Men could sacrifice animals for the well-

being of the world because they had great affection in their hearts

and were selfless. They offered even cows and horses in sacrifice and

had meat for sraddha. As householders, in their middle years, they

followed the karmamarga (the path of works) and performed rites to

please the deities for the good of the world. But, in doing so, they

desired no rewards. Later, they renounced all works, all puja, all

observances, to become sannyasins delighting themselves in their

Atman. They were men of such refinement and noble character that, if

their brother, a king, died heirless they begot a son by his wife

without any passion in their hearts and without a bit detracting from

their brahmacharya. Their only motive was that the kingdom should not

be plunged in anarchy for want of an heir to the throne.

 

In our own Kali age we do not have such men who are desireless in

their actions, who can subdue their minds and give up all works to

become ascetics and who will remain chaste at heart even in the

company of women. So it is contended that the following are to be

eschewed in the Kali age: horse and cow sacrifices, meat in the

sraddha ceremony, sannyasa, begetting a son by the husband's brother.

As authority we have the following verse:

 

Asvalambham gavalambham sanyasam palapatrikam

 

Devarena sutotpattim kalau panca vivarjayet

 

According to one view "asvalambham" in this verse should be

substituted with "agniyadhanam". If you accept this version it would

mean that even those sacrifices in which animals are not killed

should not be performed. In other words it would mean a total

prohibition of all sacrifices. The very first in the haviryajna

category is agniyadhana. If that were to be prohibited it would mean

that, apart from small sacrifices called "pakayajnas", no yajna can

be performed.

 

According to great men such a view is wrong. Sankara Bhagavatpada,

whose mission in life was the re-establishment of Vedic dharma, did

not stop with the admonishment that Vedas must be chanted every day

("Vedo nityam adhiyatam"). He insisted that rites imposed on us by

the Vedas must be performed: Taduditam karma svanusthiyatam. " Of

Vedic rites, sacrifices occupy the foremost place. If they are to be

eschewed what other Vedic rites are we to perform? It may be that

certain types of sacrifices need not be gone through in the age of

Kali.

 

If, according to the verse, agniyadhana is interdicted, and no big

sacrifice is to be performed in the age of Kali, why should

gavalambha (cow sacrifice) have been mentioned in the prohibited

category? If agniyadhana is not permissible, it goes without saying

that gavalambha also is prohibited. So, apart from certain types, all

sacrifices are to be performed at all times.

 

According to another verse quoted from the Dharmasastra, so long as

the varnasrama system is followed in the age of Kali, in however

small a measure, and so long as the sound of the Vedas pervades the

air, works like agniyadhana must be performed and the sannyasasrama

followed, the stage of life in which there is no karma. The

prohibition in Kali applies to certain types of animal sacrifices,

meat in sraddha ceremonies and begetting a son by the husband's

brother. "

 

kamakoti.org

 

so, as our graet acharya kamakoti periyavaal points out it is ok to

do whatever is prescribed in the vedas but we are now living in Kali

yuga and therefore the vedic injunctions of those days cannot be

practiced in all its entirety unless we all follow the 'vedas' to a

letter 't'

 

love and best wiushes

[Guest guest]

, Yoga man <childofdevi>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Maa adi_shakti!

>

> Thank you much for that splendid interpretation. Your

> immense knowledge never ceases to amaze me!

>

> The vedas are full of yajnas that require animal

> sacrifices. There is great controversy over this and

> like you pointed out, the same thing can mean several

> things- eg "aja" can mean goat, rice husks that are 7

> years old, cosmic spirit etc. So when "aja" is to be

> sacrificed does it refer to goat or to rice husks-

> probably depends on what level the performer is at.

> There are lots of reference where beef eating is

> advocated, eg- Chandoygapanishad, there is a reference

> to eating beef with other stuff in order to get

> progeny of certain attributes, of course this may not

> be taken literally.

>

> About 500 years back, the great Saint Appaya Dikshita

> performed a ashwemedha yajna and sacrificed 17 horses.

> So the pundits came and asked him how he could commit

> such a crime; then Appaya dikshitar summoned the

> spirits of the horses, which then told the pundits

> that because of the sacrifice they were able to ascend

> heaven straightway. So go figure!

>

> yogaman

 

Is this Saint the very same personage who turned the Vishnu statue at

Tirupati into a Shiva one?

[Guest guest]

> Is this Saint the very same personage who turned the Vishnu statue

at

> Tirupati into a Shiva one?

 

Yep same guy, he changed it into a Siva Linga and only when he was

allowed into the temple, did it revert back to being Vishnu Statue

 

Now regarding whether the murti at Tirupati is really Vishnu, there

is a raging controversy over that; some hold that it is Muruga, some

Siva and some even consider it to be Devi. This is the only Vaishnava

temple where bilva leaves are used in the pooja even today. It was

since the days of Ramanuja that it came to be worshipped as Vishnu.

Ramanuja held that it was Vishnu and to find out who it exactly was,

he suggested that the trisula and the sudarsana chakra be left in the

sanctum in the night; and in the morning which ever adorns the deity

it would accordingly be Siva or Vishnu.

 

In the morning, it was found that the chakra adorned the deity and

since then it was a Vishnu temple.

 

yogaman

[Guest guest]

, "childofdevi

<childofdevi>" <childofdevi> wrote:

>

> Now regarding whether the murti at Tirupati is really Vishnu, there

> is a raging controversy over that; some hold that it is Muruga, some

> Siva and some even consider it to be Devi. This is the only Vaishnava

> temple where bilva leaves are used in the pooja even today. It was

> since the days of Ramanuja that it came to be worshipped as Vishnu.

> Ramanuja held that it was Vishnu and to find out who it exactly was,

> he suggested that the trisula and the sudarsana chakra be left in the

> sanctum in the night; and in the morning which ever adorns the deity

> it would accordingly be Siva or Vishnu.

>

> In the morning, it was found that the chakra adorned the deity and

> since then it was a Vishnu temple.

>

> yogaman

 

I just saw this link the other day. This view is that it was

originally Buddhist.f

 

http://www.dalitstan.org/books/tirupati/tiru01.html

[Guest guest]

, "Frank Martin <sriprank>"

<sriprank> wrote:

>

> I just saw this link the other day. This view is that it was

> originally Buddhist.f

>

> http://www.dalitstan.org/books/tirupati/tiru01.html

 

Greetings! I opine that we should excercise some caution here.

 

The above site Dalitstan is run by terrorist/extremist

organisations and is designed mainly to provide false info and

propaganda and hence cannot be relied upon.

[Guest guest]

, "childofdevi

<childofdevi>" <childofdevi> wrote:

> > Is this Saint the very same personage who turned the Vishnu

statue

> at

> > Tirupati into a Shiva one?

>

> Yep same guy, he changed it into a Siva Linga and only when he was

> allowed into the temple, did it revert back to being Vishnu Statue

 

Thanks for the clarification. I find this incident most inspiring.

When one is a true devotee-Saint, one can change any Saguna murti of

Brahman to one's own taste! So much for the warnings of sectarian

Vaishnavas/Shaivas/Shaktas/etc, etc...that their ishta is the only

true one.

 

 

Namu amida butsu

[Guest guest]

> Brahman to one's own taste! So much for the warnings of sectarian

> Vaishnavas/Shaivas/Shaktas/etc, etc...that their ishta is the only

> true one.

>

 

till one reaches a certain stage, blind obedience of accepted laws is

advisable(or course one should use common sense, like not going

around killing people in the name of religion etc). till one can of

his own accord talk to god, better to follow people who have. so in

the scheme of things sectarianism does have its place, though

sometimes it does seem that they spent more time in attacking others

than in following their own practices.

 

and at least several of the saiva and vaishnava puranas(cant remember

the names off hand) affirm that siva and vishnu are one and the same.

so what the saint did essentially was to change one form of visnu

into another and then back again to the original vishnu:-)

 

yogaman

>

> Namu amida butsu

[Guest guest]

, "childofdevi

<childofdevi>" <childofdevi> wrote:

>

> till one reaches a certain stage, blind obedience of accepted laws

is

> advisable(or course one should use common sense, like not going

> around killing people in the name of religion etc). till one can of

> his own accord talk to god, better to follow people who have. so in

> the scheme of things sectarianism does have its place, though

> sometimes it does seem that they spent more time in attacking

others

> than in following their own practices.

 

Most sensible. You have the makings of a good pundit.

> and at least several of the saiva and vaishnava puranas(cant

remember

> the names off hand) affirm that siva and vishnu are one and the

same.

> so what the saint did essentially was to change one form of visnu

> into another and then back again to the original vishnu:-)

 

You of course actually meant to say "change one form of siva into...

back again to the original siva