Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 93 > > Arjuna Taradasa wrote : However there are some tantric mantras > with pranava. They are given to women as well. > > > > Satish Wrote : Tantras prohibit giving such mantras to women. They do not. Tara-pancharashmi is given to women without any doubt (there are even several women in oghas of transmission of Tara-vidya) - and it is known that it contains pranava. Same can be said about Chhinnamastika-vidya, which has OM - it is also given to women. I remember some place in Shaktananda-tarangini (which is not a Tantra BTW) prohibiting for shudras (not sure about women, but maybe) mantras beginning with OM and ending with SVAHA, as well as containing bija SHRIM. > Not a word to word translation..But it says shudras who have shuci > i.e who are clean, who follow dharma(dhArmikAH), who serve dvijas > and women who are devoted to their husbands(pativrata), all ppl born > of various mixes of castes(pratilomAnulomajAH), in the world > everyone including chandalas, meaning all human beings have the > right to have SriVidya upadesha. Shudras and Women should never do > japa of vaidika mantras. Shrividya in it's several versions includes pranava. BTW in vedic times women WERE given gayatri and upavita. Prohibition of it is a later invention, perhaps smarta. > Brahmanas are not gaining something extra by saying vadika pranava, > and likewise shudras and women dont lose anything by substituting > tantrik pranava. What is meant by tantrika-pranava here? As far as i know only kashmiri tradition has got it's "own" pranava. A. There is nothing great or low about these two > bijas. Both are equal and equally powerful. One is for some the > other is for someone lese. Period. > > SA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 > > everyone including chandalas, meaning all human beings have the > > right to have SriVidya upadesha. Shudras and Women should never do > > japa of vaidika mantras. > > Shrividya in it's several versions includes pranava. > BTW in vedic times women WERE given gayatri and upavita. Prohibition > of it is a later invention, perhaps smarta. > This is absolutely true. It is said in ancient times that women had greater rights than men(they could walk out of a marriage if they wanted but men were not allowed to do so). It was Sage Shweteketu ( uncle to Astavakra) who imposed the present restrictions on women after his mother walked out in front of his unprotesting father, with her neighbour. (Ref Tales from the Upanishads, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan). -yogaman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > > > > Satish Wrote : Tantras prohibit giving such mantras to women. > > They do not. Tara-pancharashmi is given to women without any doubt > (there are even several women in oghas of transmission of Tara- vidya) > - and it is known that it contains pranava. Same can be said about > Chhinnamastika-vidya, which has OM - it is also given to women. They do. See the quote from Rudrayamala from Kularnava in the Srividyarnava tantra. And also the quote from Shaktananda Tarangini. > Shrividya in it's several versions includes pranava. > BTW in vedic times women WERE given gayatri and upavita. Prohibition > of it is a later invention, perhaps smarta. Where pranava occurs women and shudras need to replace it with tantrika pranava. Smarta invention-Perhaps not. > > > Brahmanas are not gaining something extra by saying vadika pranava, > > and likewise shudras and women dont lose anything by substituting > > tantrik pranava. > > What is meant by tantrika-pranava here? As far as i know only kashmiri > tradition has got it's "own" pranava. There are two kinds.One is Aum said as glaum without gla i.e au the 14 th alphabet. According to Kalika Purana. Another is hrIM. On a personal level, if someone gives me a choice between vaidika pranava and tantrika pranava, I would choose tantrika pranava hrIm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 , "Satish Arigela" <satisharigela> wrote: > > Shrividya in it's several versions includes pranava. > > BTW in vedic times women WERE given gayatri and upavita. > Prohibition > > of it is a later invention, perhaps smarta. > > > Where pranava occurs women and shudras need to replace it with > tantrika pranava. Smarta invention-Perhaps not. I take this one back. There is some vague reference to women having upavita in ancient times, I remember being told long back by a learned person, although I havent seen that ref myself. However, smriti and tantras which are to be followed in the present yuga bar that practice. SA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Will someone look up Ramayana where it is said that Rama's mother was doing agnihotra when she received the news of rama's banishment? I do not know how she could have done agnihotra without knowledge of Veda mantras and a yajnopavita. All these strict rules came during the times of brahminical dominance. And they interpolated enough references to lend authority. They say "vaideeka" pranava is there. Is it OM? if so will someone explain where in Vedas pranava as "OM" is mentioned? I did ask this question earlier, the great Vaideeka pundits never gave an answer. I also pointed out that the vaideeka pranava was “IM” and not “OM”. there too there was no answer. As far as I know "OM" is NOT mentioned in the 4 Vedas. They are first referred to in the Upanishads. The other place pranava is mentioned is in Yoga sutras - I did quote it earlier too. "Sa shabdo PranavaH". Shankara in his Tarka Kaarika says Yoga and Tantra are Veda baahya. But then Shankara would be unacceptable to the vaideekas and they will say "Shankara is wrong" and it’s his "personal opinion". Similarly on meat eating: Many of u knows the story of the asura called vaataapi. The story was that Vaataapi would turn to a goat and he will be slaughtered and fried by his brother and then the brother will stand on the road and tell the Brahmins coming along the day that it was his father’s death anniversary (shraadha) and the food for Brahmana bhojana with mutton is ready. The Brahmana would come and eat the food and then the asura will call vaataapi who used to come out of the stomach of the Brahmana killing him. This ploy continued till the great “Brahmin” Rishi Agastya (whose wide AND guru in Srividya was the low caste Lopamudra) came and put a stop to this by DIGESTING Vaataapi (after eating him as a goat). This story implies 1. That meat eating was not taboo till Shankara came and established vegetarianism to ounter Buddhist influence; 2. That low castes had no taboo regarding upasana; 3. That low castes could be gurus; 4. Women could be gurus;etc. the implications are many. Look at the story. Suppose u visit a friend will they say that you came to visit “with clothes on”? It’s assumed. If u came with some extraordinary dress will the dress deserve mentioning. In the story preparation of meat for Shraadha is mentioned as a matter of everyday event. No special emphasis on that. Thus showing there was no taboo. U will also find mention of meat eating in Bharadwaja’s ashrama on the return of Rama after slaying Ravana. How will the vaideekas explain all this please? Satish Arigela <satisharigela wrote: , "Satish Arigela" <satisharigela> wrote: Shrividya in it's several versions includes pranava. > > BTW in vedic times women WERE given gayatri and upavita. > Prohibition of it is a later invention, perhaps smarta. > > Where pranava occurs women and shudras need to replace it with tantrika pranava. Smarta invention-Perhaps not. I take this one back. There is some vague reference to women having upavita in ancient times, I remember being told long back by a learned person, although I havent seen that ref myself. However, smriti and tantras which are to be followed in the present yuga bar that practice. SA. Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 I know I should not intervene in this. But still Tantrika prava is "aIM hrIM shrIM" and it is mentioned in parasurama kalpasootra. The aphorism is "SARWATRA TRITAARI SAMYOGAM". Arjuna Taradasa <bhagatirtha wrote:93 > > Arjuna Taradasa wrote : However there are some tantric mantras > with pranava. They are given to women as well. > > > > Satish Wrote : Tantras prohibit giving such mantras to women. They do not. Tara-pancharashmi is given to women without any doubt (there are even several women in oghas of transmission of Tara-vidya) - and it is known that it contains pranava. Same can be said about Chhinnamastika-vidya, which has OM - it is also given to women. I remember some place in Shaktananda-tarangini (which is not a Tantra BTW) prohibiting for shudras (not sure about women, but maybe) mantras beginning with OM and ending with SVAHA, as well as containing bija SHRIM. > Not a word to word translation..But it says shudras who have shuci > i.e who are clean, who follow dharma(dhArmikAH), who serve dvijas > and women who are devoted to their husbands(pativrata), all ppl born > of various mixes of castes(pratilomAnulomajAH), in the world > everyone including chandalas, meaning all human beings have the > right to have SriVidya upadesha. Shudras and Women should never do > japa of vaidika mantras. Shrividya in it's several versions includes pranava. BTW in vedic times women WERE given gayatri and upavita. Prohibition of it is a later invention, perhaps smarta. > Brahmanas are not gaining something extra by saying vadika pranava, > and likewise shudras and women dont lose anything by substituting > tantrik pranava. What is meant by tantrika-pranava here? As far as i know only kashmiri tradition has got it's "own" pranava. A. There is nothing great or low about these two > bijas. Both are equal and equally powerful. One is for some the > other is for someone lese. Period. > > SA. / Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Namaste, Smritis are very clear when it comes to meat eating. They have clear descriptions of what kind of meat should be eaten and what kind of meat should be avoided. So meat eating isnt a taboo or sin according to smritis. However smritis dont say that "one will got to hell if one doesnt eat meat". For yagas it is different. In some yagas meat is a requirement. The reason for vegetarianism being popular now is because of yogic and buddhist influence. Many vedic yagas need a wife for completion. One who doesnt have a wife is disqualified to perfom certain yagas because in yagas there are specific portions which the vaidika's wife should do. So in vedic view - if no wife then no yaga(not all though). As for interpolations, if they want to, they could have wiped away all portions of smritis which talk about meat eating, given that for centuries only they had access to them. But still we see them in smritis. Am not a vedic schloar but how about the "came with clothes on" example for OM? Shankara wrote Prapanchasara tantra and his disciple Padmapada wrote a commentary on it. There are more than 10 commentaries on Prapanchasara thru the ages and Avalon mentions that all of them agree that it is the work of Shankara. There seems to be a yoga related work by Shankara too. Will check. I am not quite sure, but Shankarain his Brahma Sutra Bhasya I think) does say that knowledge of brahman can be attained by sources other than veda. That women can be gurus for tantra is not in contradiction to smritis. Shudras cant. That fact is acknowledged in many tantras too. Dharma differs from yuga to yuga. This can be verfied by the statements of tantras which say that in Satya yuga such and such is the achara and in Treta another, and in Dwapara yet another and in Kali it is some other. Dharma isnt fixed for all yugas. Similarly it may change from kalpa to kalpa too. , sankara menon <kochu1tz> wrote: > > Will someone look up Ramayana where it is said that Rama's mother was doing agnihotra when she received the news of rama's banishment? > > I do not know how she could have done agnihotra without knowledge of Veda mantras and a yajnopavita. > > All these strict rules came during the times of brahminical dominance. And they interpolated enough references to lend authority. > > They say "vaideeka" pranava is there. Is it OM? if so will someone explain where in Vedas pranava as "OM" is mentioned? I did ask this question earlier, the great Vaideeka pundits never gave an answer. > > I also pointed out that the vaideeka pranava was "IM" and not "OM". there too there was no answer. > > As far as I know "OM" is NOT mentioned in the 4 Vedas. They are first referred to in the Upanishads. > > The other place pranava is mentioned is in Yoga sutras - I did quote it earlier too. "Sa shabdo PranavaH". > > Shankara in his Tarka Kaarika says Yoga and Tantra are Veda baahya. But then Shankara would be unacceptable to the vaideekas and they will say "Shankara is wrong" and it's his "personal opinion". > > Similarly on meat eating: > > Many of u knows the story of the asura called vaataapi. The story was that Vaataapi would turn to a goat and he will be slaughtered and fried by his brother and then the brother will stand on the road and tell the Brahmins coming along the day that it was his father's death anniversary (shraadha) and the food for Brahmana bhojana with mutton is ready. The Brahmana would come and eat the food and then the asura will call vaataapi who used to come out of the stomach of the Brahmana killing him. This ploy continued till the great "Brahmin" Rishi Agastya (whose wide AND guru in Srividya was the low caste Lopamudra) came and put a stop to this by DIGESTING Vaataapi (after eating him as a goat). > > This story implies > > 1. That meat eating was not taboo till Shankara came and established vegetarianism to ounter Buddhist influence; > > 2. That low castes had no taboo regarding upasana; > > 3. That low castes could be gurus; > > 4. Women could be gurus;etc. the implications are many. > > Look at the story. Suppose u visit a friend will they say that you came to visit "with clothes on"? It's assumed. If u came with some extraordinary dress will the dress deserve mentioning. In the story preparation of meat for Shraadha is mentioned as a matter of everyday event. No special emphasis on that. Thus showing there was no taboo. U will also find mention of meat eating in Bharadwaja's ashrama on the return of Rama after slaying Ravana. How will the vaideekas explain all this please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Dear All: My!! My!! I have learnt so much!! I know so little compared to the great minds that I have had the fortune to consort with here. But everyday I learn something. I thank u all childofdevi <childofdevi wrote: Satish-ji, When I read your posts, what reminds me is that you are a stickler to outer form but totally disregard the inner essence (which really is what should be followed). I am reminded of the statement that Jesus made to the Pharisees(something about cleaning outside of the cup...). BUT I will grant that at least following the outer form is still better than not doing anything LOL but it needs to be dosed with a little bit of common-sense. Sometime when I read your statements, I am actually reminded of the Taliban( with regard to their strict interpretration of Islamic Law):-) Based on authoritative statements from Smriti, Upanishads.. almost any viewpoint can be supported and you are filtering statements that espouse your particular opinion- this is totally acceptable if you accept that there are other possibilites (which you dont). Regarding pranava, gayatri and women, there is a reference in the Ramayana to Sita performing Sandhya. With regards to eating meat, the Brihadaranya Upanishad recommends eating BEEF (and not limited by caste)- in fact there are so many stories in the Upanishads about eating beef. If you tell me that these were possible only in an earlier age, I dont see why they are not applicable today. If you are very particular about observances then follow them in full (eg not to cross the ocean i.e. go abroad, take bath when you see a panchama...)- dont selectively practice what you find convenient and then be fanatical about imposing that as the absolute truth. Regarding tantra and shudras, we have to be specific what exactly "shudra" and "brahmana" means; many so called brahmanas today are nothing more than shudras. This appellation is a designation of character and not of birth. This is conclusively stated by Bheeshma in the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata where when Yudhistra asks him "what determines whether one is a brahmana- is it birth or character"; to which Bheesma replies that "only character determines Brahminhood". There is a "vidhi" type statement and there is no "poetic" interpretration here. Can you give me a single reference which states that birth alone determines a brahmin?? -yogaman , "Satish Arigela" <satisharigela> wrote: > Namaste, > > Smritis are very clear when it comes to meat eating. > / Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 , "childofdevi" <childofdevi> wrote: > Satish-ji, > > When I read your posts, what reminds me is that you are a stickler to > outer form but totally disregard the inner essence (which really is > what should be followed). On what basis do you think so? Why should it be about me? I dont understand that. Previously on another thread you were saying that I gave a specific explanation to a shloka because I did not like that explantion, where in reality there is nothing bad or acceptable or unacceptable to me about the other explanation. > Based on authoritative statements from Smriti, Upanishads.. almost > any viewpoint can be supported and you are filtering statements that > espouse your particular opinion- this is totally acceptable if you > accept that there are other possibilites (which you dont). Can you give example? I mentioned about meat eating. Right? I mentioned about women having upavita in ancient times. Right? Then how can say that I am not seeing other possibilities? > > Regarding pranava, gayatri and women, there is a reference in the > Ramayana to Sita performing Sandhya. I told this myself. Didnt I? I some earlier message I mentioned that there is refernce to women having upavita which follows that they do sandhya and say pranava. Check archives if you want prrof for that. >With regards to eating meat, the > Brihadaranya Upanishad recommends eating BEEF (and not limited by > caste)- in fact there are so many stories in the Upanishads about > eating beef. If you tell me that these were possible only in an > earlier age, I dont see why they are not applicable today. Why are you telling me this? Didnt I mention that smritis mention eating meat? Does smriti or upanishad say that it is sin to abstain from eating meat? I mentioned in two posts saying that smritis describe about meeat eating. Personally, I dont have any problem eating meat if I am in a yaga. >If you are > very particular about observances then follow them in full (eg not >to > cross the ocean i.e. go abroad, take bath when you see a >panchama...)- During the course of a discussion in another list, it was mentioned that the reason for prescribing so is because one has to attend nature calls and release them in person in large water bodies. So if there is no chance of that happening there is no problem? Smritis have a prohibition saying not to such release personally into large water bodies. > dont selectively practice what you find convenient and then be > fanatical about imposing that as the absolute truth. Dont speculate about things which you have no clue about. As though you know everything thing I do. Sounds like one of your statments addressed to me sometime back saying "See, you are not accepting this becoz you dont like this idea...blah blah" when actually there is no reason for me to like or dislike the other idea in that discussion, which I mentioned in a follow up post. I request you to stop making such assumptions. Focus on the post and its contents not on the poster unless you have some evidence showing that there might be something personal involved in it. > > Regarding tantra and shudras, we have to be specific what > exactly "shudra" and "brahmana" means; many so called brahmanas today > are nothing more than shudras. Nobody objects to that. >This appellation is a designation of > character and not of birth. This is conclusively stated by >Bheeshma > in the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata where when Yudhistra asks > him "what determines whether one is a brahmana- is it birth or > character"; to which Bheesma replies that "only character >determines > Brahminhood". There is a "vidhi" type statement and there is > no "poetic" interpretration here. Can you give me a single >reference > which states that birth alone determines a brahmin?? Almost **all** smritis say that one is a Shudra by birth and he that becomes a dvija after the upanaya ceremony. Since there is no upanayana ceremony prescribed(Most smritis say that Shudras dont have upanaya ceremony) for shudras they remain so. Ofcourse they also say that just having that sacred thread around the body doesnt make one a brahmana. They need to have some achara etc. to be called so. Consider this: Ex: There are certain prayogas in tantras which involve ppl from various castes. In one certain prayoga it is required that one should obtain a cloth which is discarded by a Brahmana Woman.In some other prayoga a cloth discarded by a chandala woman is required. Do you think this means that you have to go in search of a woman and assess her charecter and when you determine whether she is brahmana woman or chandala woman, then get a piece of her discarded cloth? On a practical level, it doesnt make any sense. No doubt that charecter is key. So how do you determine one is a Shudra or Brahmana? You ago about assessing everyone's charecter and make a list of of ppl around you saying he is Shudra , he is Brahmana, he is Vaishya, he is Kshatriya etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 > Almost **all** smritis say that one is a Shudra by birth and he > that becomes a dvija after the upanaya ceremony. Since there is no > upanayana ceremony prescribed(Most smritis say that Shudras dont > have upanaya ceremony) for shudras they remain so. > Ofcourse they also say that just having that sacred thread around > the body doesnt make one a brahmana. They need to have some achara > etc. to be called so. Based on your statement the great Vyasa would be a chandala; First of all, he was the offspring of a gandharva type relationship which is proscribed to a brahmin(i.e. his father Parasara); Manusmriti(or probably one of the other smrities, cant recall offhand) also prohibits pratiloma (marriage between an uppercaste man and lowercaste women) .... As I stated once before you are looking at things very superficially and draw some very grotesque conclusions which totally lack "common-sense"; I personally think that someone who thinks that the a birth based caste system is divinely ordained is nothing more than a Neanderthal. Do you realise how much you are maligning Hinduism with your atrocious conclusions- instead of welcoming newcomers to the Hindu religion with both hands, they are being driven off or given substandard treatment under the pretex that they are "mlechas". BTW since you are so fanatical about a birth based caste-system, the smritis (various Puranas) have various instances of people who were converted to brahmins. I give some examples examples 1) Namboodiris of Kerala were originally fishermen; when Parasurama created Kerala none of the orthodox brahmins refused to accept his gift of land; so he anointed fisherman as Brahmins with threads made out of their fishing nets(REF Skandapurana and several oral traditions in Kerala) So would you now say that the great Adi Sankara must be a fisherman since caste is only dependent on birth(according to you). 2)the iconoclast Parasurama again breathed life into a lifeless mleccha body and anointed him as a brahmin; all maharashtrian brahmins are supposed to descendents of this brahmin. I cant recall where i came across this story I could go on but will stop for now for lack of time. > > Consider this: Ex: There are certain prayogas in tantras which > involve ppl from various castes. > In one certain prayoga it is required that one should obtain a cloth > which is discarded by a Brahmana Woman.In some other prayoga a cloth > discarded by a chandala woman is required. > Do you think this means that you have to go in search of a woman and > assess her charecter and when you determine whether she is brahmana > woman or chandala woman, then get a piece of her discarded cloth? > On a practical level, it doesnt make any sense. Why not. You look at her occupation, no need to do an intense psychoanalysis or past life regression. If she works as a servant then she is a shudra; if she is the PM of India,then she is kshatriya. Not at all difficult. > > No doubt that charecter is key. So how do you determine one is a > Shudra or Brahmana? You ago about assessing everyone's charecter and > make a list of of ppl around you saying he is Shudra , he is > Brahmana, he is Vaishya, he is Kshatriya etc? Of course. Like I mentioned before, you look at the occupation. Brahmanas must beg for their living (noblesse oblige!!!) and cannot have any wealth, thats the reason why they are accorded a high status (some smritis will provide more possibilities). -yogman PS. BTW I am not making any personal attacks; I am only commenting with regards to your statement that varna=birth, which in addition to being downright silly is also not at all accepted by any shastra (PLEASE READ my reference to Bhisma's statement in the Mahabharata). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 , "childofdevi" <childofdevi> wrote: > Based on your statement the great Vyasa would be a chandala; First of > all, he was the offspring of a gandharva type relationship which is > proscribed to a brahmin(i.e. his father Parasara); Manusmriti(or > probably one of the other smrities, cant recall offhand) also > prohibits pratiloma (marriage between an uppercaste man and > lowercaste women) .... As I stated once before you are looking at > things very superficially and draw some very grotesque conclusions > which totally lack "common-sense"; I personally think that someone > who thinks that the a birth based caste system is divinely ordained > is nothing more than a Neanderthal. Do you realise how much you are > maligning Hinduism with your atrocious conclusions- instead of > welcoming newcomers to the Hindu religion with both hands, they are > being driven off or given substandard treatment under the pretex that > they are "mlechas". In one of the earlier posts I mentioned about a few people for whom these rules dont apply because of divine samaskaras. Vyasa and many rishis who had such births are some of them. These rules are for the general public. As for welcoming newcomers, I dont think a substandard treatment is fair. I mentioned earlier with a quote from Srividarnava saying every human being has a right to have Srividya Upadesha, no matter what race or to what country they belong to. Such substandard treatment goes against the spirit if shastra itself, IMO. The conclusions are not gotesque. They are quite clear and straight forward. I did not interpret them. I presented them as they are. I get an impression that you are trying to present a sugarcoated view of hinduism so that others get attracted to it(i dont have a problem if more ppl want to follow hinduism), instead of presenting hinduism as it is. > BTW since you are so fanatical about a birth based caste-system, the > smritis (various Puranas) have various instances of people who were > converted to brahmins. I give some examples examples > > 1) Namboodiris of Kerala were originally fishermen; when Parasurama > created Kerala none of the orthodox brahmins refused to accept his > gift of land; so he anointed fisherman as Brahmins with threads made > out of their fishing nets(REF Skandapurana and several oral > traditions in Kerala) > > So would you now say that the great Adi Sankara must be a fisherman > since caste is only dependent on birth(according to you). > > 2)the iconoclast Parasurama again breathed life into a lifeless > mleccha body and anointed him as a brahmin; all maharashtrian > brahmins are supposed to descendents of this brahmin. I cant recall > where i came across this story > > I could go on but will stop for now for lack of time. Am aware of a few of these. I beleive there are many. As I said, smritis are normal ppl. They dont apply to exceptional ppl. For someone born with such exceptional divine qualities, God will show them a way no matter how ppl oppose them. So we need not worry about them. Parashurama has authority to do anything. He being Vishnu himself. We cannot and dont have the authority do to everything that Vyasa, Adi-Shankara or Parashurama did. > (PLEASE READ my reference to Bhisma's statement in the >Mahabharata). Then what about the statements of numerous(atleast 8 of them that I am aware of) smritis which contradict it? By contradiction, I mean the statement of smritis saying that, to be a Brahmana one has to meet 3 conditions: 1)Be born in a brahmana caste 2)Go thru the upanayana ceremony 3) Follow the injunctions laid for them. Smritis say that only when these 3 conditions are met one is a Brahmana. All 3 are required to be called a Brahmana. Why should one statement of Mahabharata be given importance and the statements of so many smritis on the same issue be ignored? We should have some logical reason to do so. Right? Doesnt it make more sense for one to assume that the story from Mahabharata is an interpolation instead of assuming that scores of smritis are interpolated? Btw, am not saying the story from MBh is an inerpolation. Am just suggesting that this is more plausible. Since brahmanas are accused of interpolating or extrapolating things, they could have just eliminated this story from MahaBharata if they want to. Is it a big deal to eliminate a small story if they actually interpolated/extrapolated smriti texts? Why didnt they do that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 > Am aware of a few of these. I beleive there are many. As I said, > smritis are normal ppl. They dont apply to exceptional ppl. For > someone born with such exceptional divine qualities, God will show > them a way no matter how ppl oppose them. So we need not worry about > them. > Parashurama has authority to do anything. He being Vishnu himself. > We cannot and dont have the authority do to everything that Vyasa, > Adi-Shankara or Parashurama did. > Wait I thought you were telling that saints like Amritananadamayi or Guruji Amrita dont have the authority to do those things(refer to your earlier posts); now you are saying that divine people have the authority. Parashurama may be a very divine being but he does not come across as a jnani(if you think he is tell me one incident about the life of parasurama that shows he is a jnani). What this story tells me is that Hinduism is very flexible and rules are just a social convenience. If great people like Vyasa and Adi-Sankara do things, it is to set an example for us lesser mortals. Can you summarise what "rules" constitute? It seems that everytime an exception to a rule is pointed out, you come up with some excuse or the other. > > > (PLEASE READ my reference to Bhisma's statement in the > >Mahabharata). > > Then what about the statements of numerous(atleast 8 of them that I > am aware of) smritis which contradict it? > By contradiction, I mean the statement of smritis saying that, to be > a Brahmana one has to meet 3 conditions: 1)Be born in a brahmana > caste 2)Go thru the upanayana ceremony 3) Follow the injunctions > laid for them. Smritis say that only when these 3 conditions are met > one is a Brahmana. All 3 are required to be called a Brahmana. > Why should one statement of Mahabharata be given importance and the > statements of so many smritis on the same issue be ignored? We > should have some logical reason to do so. Right? Doesnt it make more > sense for one to assume that the story from Mahabharata is an > interpolation instead of assuming that scores of smritis are > interpolated? Btw, am not saying the story from MBh is an > inerpolation. Am just suggesting that this is more plausible. Since > brahmanas are accused of interpolating or extrapolating things, they > could have just eliminated this story from MahaBharata if they want > to. Is it a big deal to eliminate a small story if they actually > interpolated/extrapolated smriti texts? Why didnt they do that? This statement from the MB is important for the following reasons- 1) The authority of the person-Bheesma (we learn from no less than Bhagavan Krishna who directed Yudhistra to Bheesma) 2) The Shanti Parva alone with the Bhagavad Gita is the summum bonus of the MB; and this is no "little" incident or a freak exception(BTW the Vishnu Sahasranama also comes from Shanti Parva) 3) The context of the story is the same as the argument we have having- is varna inherited or acquired(Yudhistra question was " some say that Brahmana is by birth, others say it is character" something on those lines). And Bheesma for once and for all clarifies the debate. This story could not have been interpolated because it does not work out in the favour of brahmanas LOL. There is only one reason it is there- because it is the truth. -yogman ps. I am not sugarcoating Hinduism and presenting it as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 Satish-ji, When I read your posts, what reminds me is that you are a stickler to outer form but totally disregard the inner essence (which really is what should be followed). I am reminded of the statement that Jesus made to the Pharisees(something about cleaning outside of the cup...). BUT I will grant that at least following the outer form is still better than not doing anything LOL but it needs to be dosed with a little bit of common-sense. Sometime when I read your statements, I am actually reminded of the Taliban( with regard to their strict interpretration of Islamic Law):- ) Based on authoritative statements from Smriti, Upanishads.. almost any viewpoint can be supported and you are filtering statements that espouse your particular opinion- this is totally acceptable if you accept that there are other possibilites (which you dont). Regarding pranava, gayatri and women, there is a reference in the Ramayana to Sita performing Sandhya. With regards to eating meat, the Brihadaranya Upanishad recommends eating BEEF (and not limited by caste)- in fact there are so many stories in the Upanishads about eating beef. If you tell me that these were possible only in an earlier age, I dont see why they are not applicable today. If you are very particular about observances then follow them in full (eg not to cross the ocean i.e. go abroad, take bath when you see a panchama...)- dont selectively practice what you find convenient and then be fanatical about imposing that as the absolute truth. Regarding tantra and shudras, we have to be specific what exactly "shudra" and "brahmana" means; many so called brahmanas today are nothing more than shudras. This appellation is a designation of character and not of birth. This is conclusively stated by Bheeshma in the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata where when Yudhistra asks him "what determines whether one is a brahmana- is it birth or character"; to which Bheesma replies that "only character determines Brahminhood". There is a "vidhi" type statement and there is no "poetic" interpretration here. Can you give me a single reference which states that birth alone determines a brahmin?? -yogaman , "Satish Arigela" <satisharigela> wrote: > Namaste, > > Smritis are very clear when it comes to meat eating. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.