use of silk etc.,

[Guest guest]

On 7/24/98 11:01 AM Sri Chandrasekaran wrote

> [ I have seen on the contrary offerings of silk saris etc in

>yag~na fire.]

> chandrasekaran.

 

Yes even I had this doubt in my mind. When, we are not even supposed

to eat vegetables like Onion etc., for the reason that they are

taamasic in their nature, how can we offer the silk saris and other

Pattu vasthrams during the PoorNaahuti of the hOmam that we do.

 

Well my question exactly is, since this is a custom that is being

followed for a long time right from our oldest ancestors, there might

be a reason or a justification to this.

 

Can anyone please throw light on this. I am more particular about the

Silk being offered in the Purest ritual which is the Yagnam or HOmam.

 

adiyEn RAmAnuja dAsan

 

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

[Guest guest]

dear mr.chanrasekaran,

 

though i accept most of the sattvic views in your posting, i would like

to clarify the purpose of avoiding non-veg food habits of our

ancesters.i only present my humble view. if i am wrong, i request for

posting in this subject and i will eventually correct my stand.

 

1.unlike buddists and jains avoiding non-veg food is not driven by

non-violence. it is actually due to the fact that foods have been

bifurcated as sattvic, rajasic and tamasic.

2. by eating non-veg food one gets tamasic mentality and hence it bars

on one's knowledge, one's willingness to learn (against athatho bramha

jingnayasa") and hence brahmins were barred from eating as it would

result in desires, fear and all negative attitudes which should not be

with brahmins.

 

3. similarly some vegetables also yield to rajasic character.

 

 

in this connection i have heard very little about the work of "akara

niyathi" of swami desikan. i shall be thankful if someone volunteers to

contribute in this list as it would be useful to many others.

 

dasan

 

k.m.narayanan

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr.Narayanan,

Namaskarams. Yes, adiyEn is aware that our gunas depend

majorly on the food we consume. Vegetables like onion, garlic,

raddish are supposed to instill wrong desires in our hearts.

Similarly consuming higher living creatures will create aggressive

tendencies.

But at the same time our sanatana darma stresses heavily on

ahimsa as do buddhism and jainism. It is one of the prerequisites

for a sadhaka to reach the state of self-realisation and hence

bliss. I think this is mentioned in bhagavatham also. So urging

vegetarianism for spiritual welfare has both the above as strong

reasons, I feel.

Otherwise i.e, if only guna is the reason for this, then it would

mean that it would be ok to take an animal's flesh which can

induce sattvic guna in our hearts which is hypothetical ofcourse.

This is ofcourse defeating the very essence of sattvic guna. A

sattva will not harm any creature for his welfare.

 

adiyEn,

chandrasekaran.

[Guest guest]

At 09:28 AM 7/28/1998 +0500, V. Chandrasekaran wrote:

> Namaskarams. Yes, adiyEn is aware that our gunas depend

> majorly on the food we consume. Vegetables like onion, garlic,

> raddish are supposed to instill wrong desires in our hearts.

> Similarly consuming higher living creatures will create aggressive

> tendencies.

 

Is it not the words of our poorvacharyas that make us

accept the above? After all there is no scientific proof.

Then, it follows that we look to our Acharyas for answers

to this question. Our Acharays, after studying the sasthras

have elaborated what to eat and what not to eat. There is

an article on Ahara Niyamam in the Archives sometime

in 1995 or early 1996.

 

 

> But at the same time our sanatana darma stresses heavily on

> ahimsa as do buddhism and jainism. It is one of the prerequisites

 

I don't wish to argue against Ahimsai. But we need to look

at this in perspective. Please consider the following.

 

In Srimad BG our Lord Himself urges Arjuna to enter the

battle and provide extreme _himsai_ to his near and dear

ones, let alone some unknown animal. Further, our own

Sri Ramanuja says that animal sacrifice as in Agnishomiya

is good for the animal. Ref: Sri Rmaanuja Githa Bhashya

Chapter 2, Verse 31.

 

Then, we have the examples of Guhan and Dharmavyadhar.

Dharmavyadhar says,

 

"The one who consumes meat after

offering it to Devas and Pithrus will

not incur any sin."

 

"Agni likes meat. Therefore, the

brahmins kill goats and offer the

meat to Agni. Those "yaaga pasus"

reach Svargam because they are

killed after having undergone proper

samskaram."

 

These and other such references may be found in

Chapter 212 of Vana Parvam, Maha Bharatham.

 

All of these examples have one thing in common. The "himsai"

given to others is in the course of performing one's prescribed

duty in the prescribed way. Thus, there is no blanket injunction

against himsai as in Buddism and Jainism.

 

Please permit me to present another angle. Those who offer

meat to the Lord and then consume it as "prasadham" is a lot

better off than those who live as strict vegetarians without

ever touching even eggs, but have no time for perumaaL.

Thirumangai Azhvaar describes a scene where the lions of

the hills of Ahobilam cull out the ivory from the elephants they

kill and offer them to the Lord. It is but natural for the lions to

kill. But, even while living a life of killing they remembered the

Lord and offered a part of their kill to the Him. It seems to me

that some of those lions are in Vaikuntam while many of the

strict vegetarians are still languishing in this samsaram.

 

> for a sadhaka to reach the state of self-realisation and hence

> bliss. I think this is mentioned in bhagavatham also. So urging

> vegetarianism for spiritual welfare has both the above as strong

> reasons, I feel.

 

 

Again, pardon me to seem to disagreeif, but as I am sure you know,

spiritual release does not come because of Vegetarianism. It comes

only through the grace of our sweet lord.

 

In summary, please consider the possibility that it is possible

for prapannas to use silk for the pleasure our Lord Sriman Narayana.

 

 

-- adiyEn raamnuja dhasan

[Guest guest]

With regard to Tondar-adi-podi Alvar's verse about

cutting off the heads of those who deny the validity

of the Lord -- please see the following article from

the archives

 

http://thondar.busi.utc.edu/bhakti/archives/jun95/0003.html

 

which contains the two verses from Tirumaalai with

a translation of Periyavaaccaan Pillai's commentary.

 

Granted, the words still strike one as being intolerant,

but perhaps we can understand them easier in their context

of ardent devotion, and with the idea of Vedic sacrifice.

Rationalization? Perhaps.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Parthasarati Dileepan wrote:

> In Srimad BG our Lord Himself urges Arjuna to enter the

> battle and provide extreme _himsai_ to his near and dear

> ones, let alone some unknown animal.

 

I do not see how it follows that because Krishna urged

Arjuna to wage war in a particular situation, under a particular

set of rules, with people ready to do battle, it then behooves

one to rationalize harming an animal. In fact, ahimsA is

extolled as a great virtue at least 2 or 3 times in the Gita.

 

In the Mahabharata, of which the Gita is the essence, it is

very clearly stated, "ahimsA paramo dharma" -- non-injury is

the greatest dharma, and in the bRhad-AraNyaka-upanishad it

is stated that one should never hurt any creature, the exception

being the Vedic sacrifice.

> Further, our own

> Sri Ramanuja says that animal sacrifice as in Agnishomiya

> is good for the animal. Ref: Sri Rmaanuja Githa Bhashya

> Chapter 2, Verse 31.

 

And while Ramanuja did say this, one should ponder whether

the acharya himself ever sacrificed an animal, or after doing

so, ate its remains. I seriously doubt it. Ramanuja's

adherence to the validity of animal sacrifice is not so much

a commandment that we perform the same, but belief in the

validity of the Vedic method for some purpose. Anything that

can be achieved by animal sacrifice can be achieved by non-

violent worship. Further, the very thought of harming even

a plant, even out of "AcArya-kainkarya" (service to one's guru)

would cause the venerable Kuratt-Alvan to faint. It is said

that Alvan would faint at seeing someone cut down a banana

tree for its leaves, in utter sympathy for the plant.

> Then, we have the examples of Guhan and Dharmavyadhar.

> Dharmavyadhar says,

>

> "The one who consumes meat after

> offering it to Devas and Pithrus will

> not incur any sin."

 

We have to make a serious distinction between "no sin" and

the "right thing to do". There is a difference. There are many

things that are not sinful -- selfless action of any sort does

not incur sin. One can kill an innocent someone without any

self-interest; this may not be sinful, but it certainly isn't

the right thing to do. The Gita and the Bharata can be easily

misunderstood to mean that cold-blooded, calculated murder

is OK, but a crime of passion is not, because the former is

selfless but the latter is not! This could not be further from

the truth.

> Thus, there is no blanket injunction

> against himsai as in Buddism and Jainism.

 

Yes there is! At all costs we are to avoid violence --

except when it is absolultely mandatory to preserve a higher

good. In this context, Vedic sacrifice is no longer necessary,

and while not sinful, is deprecated. Waging war, while it

may not be sinful, is not the right thing to do when the same

can be accomplished at lesser cost by peaceful means.

> Please permit me to present another angle. Those who offer

> meat to the Lord and then consume it as "prasadham" is a lot

> better off than those who live as strict vegetarians without

> ever touching even eggs, but have no time for perumaaL.

 

What about those who engage in "bhUta-kainkarya", and avoid meat,

without thinking about God too much, but those who slaughter animals

mercilessly, and offer a little bit to God to appease their

conscience? I would rather spend time with the former, as they

are selflessly worshipping some mode of God in truth.

 

We can talk all we want about lions, but I refuse to believe

that it is the natural state of some human beings to consume

meat, and that it therefore should be tolerated. There is much

evidence in sAstra against such a position.

> In summary, please consider the possibility that it is possible

> for prapannas to use silk for the pleasure our Lord Sriman Narayana.

 

We can rationalize all that we like, just because it has

tradition or the world's opinion in its favor. But I find it

very hard to accept that SrIman nArAyaNa is happy with us causing

unnecessary harm to thousands of His creatures, very often for us

to "prove" our devotion by spending more money.

 

Mani

 

P.S. It should be noted that Sri Madhvacharya believed that

grain models of animals could be used in sacrifices instead

of real animals, and that this was the better way of conducting

a Vedic sacrifice.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

Mani Varadarajan <mani

 

>In the Mahabharata, of which the Gita is the essence, it is

>very clearly stated, "ahimsA paramo dharma" -- non-injury is

>the greatest dharma,

 

I have heard this verse before. Can you please provide a specific verse

number in which it can be found?

 

and in the bRhad-AraNyaka-upanishad it

>is stated that one should never hurt any creature, the exception

>being the Vedic sacrifice.

 

I don't doubt this is stated there, but again, can you please provide a

specific verse number?

>Yes there is! At all costs we are to avoid violence --

>except when it is absolultely mandatory to preserve a higher

>good. In this context, Vedic sacrifice is no longer necessary,

>and while not sinful, is deprecated.

 

It is interesting to note that Sri Chaitanya, in a context not unlike this

one, quoted the Brahmavaivarta PuraaNa to this effect:

 

ashvamedha.m gavaalambha.m sannyaasa.m palapaitR^ikam |

devareNa sutotpatti.m kalau pa~ncha vivarjayet ||

 

In this age of Kali, five acts are forbidden: the offering of a horse in

sacrifice, the offering of a cow in sacrifice, the acceptance of the order

of sannyaasa, the offering of oblations of flesh to the forefathers, and a

man's begetting children in his brother's wife (brahmavaivarta puraaNa).

 

Waging war, while it

>may not be sinful, is not the right thing to do when the same

>can be accomplished at lesser cost by peaceful means.

 

 

Of course, the important point of waging war in the context of Bhagavad-Gita

was that Arjuna should wage war because, ultimately, it was Lord Krishna's

desire to do so. As long as he was fully surrendered to the Lord and doing

as He ordered, He could incur no sin.

>> Please permit me to present another angle. Those who offer

>> meat to the Lord and then consume it as "prasadham" is a lot

>> better off than those who live as strict vegetarians without

>> ever touching even eggs, but have no time for perumaaL.

 

 

Personally I have some doubts about this. I remember reading somewhere a

statement to the effect that the animal-killer is the only type of sinner

who cannot appreciate the message of the Bhaagavatam. Furthermore, it's not

clear to me that offering meat to the Lord can even be considered devotional

service. I for one would think that the Lord would regard it as offensive.

At least, if someone were to put meat on my plate and put it in front of me,

I would be pretty disgusted.

>We can talk all we want about lions, but I refuse to believe

>that it is the natural state of some human beings to consume

>meat, and that it therefore should be tolerated. There is much

>evidence in sAstra against such a position.

 

 

In fact, there is plenty of evidence against it. In Srila Prabhupada's

translation of Shriimad Bhaagavatam, this subject comes up in at least two

places which I am aware of.

 

For example, in the 11th skandha, the Yogendras are describing to Maharaja

Nimi the fate of those who abandon Vedic regulations in the age of Kali.

They say:

 

loke vyavaayaamiShamadyasevaa nityaa hi jantorna hi tatra chodanaa |

vyavasthitisteShu vivaahayaj~na suraagrahairaasu nivR^ittiriShtaa || Bhaa P

11.5.11 ||

 

loke - in the material world; vyavaaya - sex indulgence; aamiSha - of meat;

madya - and liquor; sevaaH - the taking; nityaaH - always found; hi -

indeed; jantoH - in the conditioned living being; na - not; hi - indeed;

tatra - in regard to them; chodanaa - any command of scripture;

vyavasthitiH - the prescribed arrangement; teShu - in these; vivaaha - by

sacred marriage; yaj~na - the offering of sacrifice; suraa-grahaiH - and the

acceptance of ritual cups of wine; aasu - of these; nivR^ittiH - cessation;

iShTaa - is the desired end.

 

In this material world the conditioned soul is always inclined to sex,

meat-eating and intoxication. Therefore religious scriptures never actually

encourage such activities. Although the scriptural injunctions provide for

sex through sacred marriage, for meat-eating through sacrifical offerings

and for intoxication through the acceptance of ritual cups of wine, such

ceremonies are meant for the ultimate purpose of renunciation. (bhaagavata

puraaNa 11.5.11)

 

yad ghraaNabhakSho vihitaH suraayaastathaa pashoraalabhana.m na hi.msaa |

eva.m vyavaayaH prajayaa na ratyaa ima.m vishuddha.m na viduH svadharmam ||

Bhaa P 11.5.13 ||

 

yat - because; ghraaNa - by smell; bhakShaH - the taking; vihitaH - is

enjoined; suraayaaH - of wine; tathaa - similarly; pashoH - of a sacrificial

animal; aalabhanam - prescribed killing; na - not; hi.msaa - wanton

violence; evam - in the same way; vyavaayaH - sex; prajayaa - for the

purpose of begetting children; na - not; ratyai - for the sake of sense

enjoyment; imam - this (as pointed out in the previous verse); vishuddham -

most pure; na viduH - they do not understand; sva-dharmam - their own proper

duty.

 

According to the Vedic injunctions, when wine is offered in sacrifical

ceremonies it is later to be consumed by smelling, and not by drinking.

Similarly, the sacrificial offering of animals is permitted, but there is

not provision for wide-scale animal slaughter. Religious sex life is also

permitted, but only in marriage for begetting children, and not for sensuous

exploitation of the body. Unfortunately, however, the less intelligent

materialists cannot understand that their duties in life should be performed

purely on the spiritual platform (bhaagavata puraaNa 11.5.13).

 

Thus, even when shaastric injunctions provide for some opportunity to

sacrifice an animal, it is to be understood that such sacrifices are

ultimately for renunciation of the proscribed activity. Furthermore,

sacrifices like the ashvamedha yaj~na (which are performed for the sake of

getting some material benefit) are still not to be performed in the age of

Kali. The idea is that there simply are not brahmins who can perform those

sacrifices properly, and thus performance of such sacrifices will cause the

practitioners to incur sin (hence the quote from the Brahmavaivarta).

>> In summary, please consider the possibility that it is possible

>> for prapannas to use silk for the pleasure our Lord Sriman Narayana.

>

>We can rationalize all that we like, just because it has

>tradition or the world's opinion in its favor. But I find it

>very hard to accept that SrIman nArAyaNa is happy with us causing

>unnecessary harm to thousands of His creatures, very often for us

>to "prove" our devotion by spending more money.

 

As do I. And while that may make things inconvenient for us, it is important

to realize that devotional service to the Lord is rarely convenient.

Sometimes it's more rewarding to go through the hardships of performing

everything properly, rather than trying to perform devotionals service

according to our own self-imposed limitations.

>Mani

>

>P.S. It should be noted that Sri Madhvacharya believed that

>grain models of animals could be used in sacrifices instead

>of real animals, and that this was the better way of conducting

>a Vedic sacrifice.

 

 

Is this so? I would appreciate if you could provide some evidence. In which

of his works did he state this? I don't doubt that he would say such a

thing, but if he did, then it's quite probable that there is scriptural

evidence to back it up.

 

 

regards,

 

-- K

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimate Sri Lakshmi Nrusimha ParaBrahmane Namaha

 

Dear devotees,

namo NArAyanA. Kindly accept adiyen's pranAmams.

 

Parthasarati Dileepan wrote:

> Further, our own

> Sri Ramanuja says that animal sacrifice as in Agnishomiya

> is good for the animal. Ref: Sri Rmaanuja Githa Bhashya

> Chapter 2, Verse 31.

 

Sri Mani wrote :

 

And while Ramanuja did say this, one should ponder whether

the acharya himself ever sacrificed an animal, or after doing

so, ate its remains. I seriously doubt it. Ramanuja's

adherence to the validity of animal sacrifice is not so much

a commandment that we perform the same, but belief in the

validity of the Vedic method for some purpose. Anything that

can be achieved by animal sacrifice can be achieved by non-

violent worship. Further, the very thought of harming even

a plant, even out of "AcArya-kainkarya" (service to one's guru)

would cause the venerable Kuratt-Alvan to faint. It is said

that Alvan would faint at seeing someone cut down a banana

tree for its leaves, in utter sympathy for the plant.

 

Sri Dileepan wrote :

> Then, we have the examples of Guhan and Dharmavyadhar.

> Dharmavyadhar says,

>

> "The one who consumes meat after

> offering it to Devas and Pithrus will

> not incur any sin."

 

We have to make a serious distinction between "no sin" and

the "right thing to do". There is a difference. There are many

things that are not sinful -- selfless action of any sort does

not incur sin. One can kill an innocent someone without any

self-interest; this may not be sinful, but it certainly isn't

the right thing to do. The Gita and the Bharata can be easily

misunderstood to mean that cold-blooded, calculated murder

is OK, but a crime of passion is not, because the former is

selfless but the latter is not! This could not be further from

the truth.

at lesser cost by peaceful means.

 

Sri Dileepan wrote :

> Please permit me to present another angle. Those who offer

> meat to the Lord and then consume it as "prasadham" is a lot

> better off than those who live as strict vegetarians without

> ever touching even eggs, but have no time for perumaaL.

 

Sri Mani wrote :

 

What about those who engage in "bhUta-kainkarya", and avoid meat,

without thinking about God too much, but those who slaughter animals

mercilessly, and offer a little bit to God to appease their

conscience? I would rather spend time with the former, as they

are selflessly worshipping some mode of God in truth.

 

We can talk all we want about lions, but I refuse to believe

that it is the natural state of some human beings to consume

meat, and that it therefore should be tolerated. There is much

evidence in sAstra against such a position.

 

Adiyen :

 

The jIvAtmA which resided inside the body of the animal that is used in

the "ya~jnA" , attains svargam . Aswamedha yAgA ( horse sacrifice ) etc

have been done so many times by great Kings in the past . Infact ,

during srAddham ( davasam) one should offer Deer's meat etc & the BrAhmanAs

should eat them . From vAlmIkI RAmAyanA one can infer that some great

personalities ate meat .

 

But , all these things are no more valid for kali yugA . Usage of meat in

any Bhagavad kainkaryam is not permitted in Kali yugA due to the kali

yuga dharmA . Killing of animals for Bhagavad kainkaryam has to be

understood in an integrated way & not just the performance of this act . In

kali yugA there is 99.9 % ( some one may be still qualified as good as a

rishi of the past ) of misusing this animal sacrifice . So , in smruthi

, they banned it .

 

In general , the performer of the yAgA ( esp. when using animals etc ) has

to be highly pure in body & mind . So , they were fit enough to do

that & simultaneously brought elevation to the jIvAtmA that was occupying

animal body . One can understand the kali yugA standards very well by

themselves . There is no need to say that one shouldn't eat meat / use it

for Bhagavad kainkaryam .

 

adiyen

anantha padmanAbha dAsan

[Guest guest]

Dearest bhaagawatas,

 

Please permit me to present some (I confess, pedestrian) views.

 

I have no comment on whether the sacrifice of animals according to

vedic injunction will actually be good to the jeevatma resident in the

animal's body and the jeevatma of the sacrificer.

 

However, history has it ( ... and there is no solid proof of this

other than texts) that such sacrificial practices were grossly misused

by the then-caretakers of the vedas. The karma kaaNDa of the vedas

seemed to be all the vedas represented. The Buddha avataara became

essential in reversing this abominable trend. Then, again, when

Buddhism's concept of nihilism became rife, there was a need to

reverse that trend since that representation of the "TRUTH" was at

best incomplete. However, note that Buddhism did accomplish what it

set out to do. Then came Sankara's illustrious avataara which set out

to prove through the age-old upanishadic system of thought that the

concept of Brahman was a Reality. This revival was again absolutely

essential since vedic thought had been rudely pushed to the

back-burner. This time, however, it emerged as pure vedAnta. How

could Sankara have convinced the people that animal sacrifice was okay

when Buddhism was so prevalent? Sankara accomplished what had to

be accomplished, and left the rest to Ramanuja. Ramanuja's work was

already half done - Vedanta had re-emerged on Indian soil. All he had

to do was to prove that the philosophy and religion expressed in the

karma and jnana parts of the vedas was consistent.

 

Given the fact that the human kind has erred so prodigiously, I have

no doubt that we at the verge of the millennium are no better informed

and no less sinful than others we choose to comment upon. I think the

aacharyas of any faith work with a plan to influence the people they

have to deal with in the most appropriate fashion. They are, in a

sense, politicians and manipulators of the highest order, except that

such manipulation is done out of selfless love and compassion towards

the society (loka kalyaaNa). Even though Ramanuja truthfully

translated and commented upon the Geeta and has talked positively

about the sacrifices, one must realize that the practice of senseless

animal sacrifices probably had disappeared from the scene, thanks to

Buddha. Given this, it does not really matter whether sacrifices of

this nature are right or wrong. Ramanuja just wanted to show how the

two kaaNDas of the vedas form one coherent piece of knowledge.

 

To conclude ... although "sastra-prescribed himsa" is technically

correct, it should be treated as a non-issue. It does not apply to us

here in 1998. If Ramanujacharya says something, he says so with a

purpose, and the purpose is more important than the words. Ahimsa is

to be practiced with utmost care - ("ahimsa prathamam pushpam" - The

first flower you can offer to the Lord is ahimsa. In that sense,

ahimsa is THE injunction.

 

In my humble opinion, the use of silk, deer skin (krshnajeena), and

other such products has always repelled me. Deer skin, I can

understand. Probably it is obtained from the carcass of a dead deer.

With silk, I have a big problem. Also, I think the saastras say

"peetambara" which means yellow cloth (not necessarily silk from a

hapless silkworm). One of our erudite members should comment on this.

 

|| sarvam sree krishNaarpaNamastu ||

-- murali kadambi

[Guest guest]

At 11:51 AM 7/29/1998 -0700, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

>Parthasarati Dileepan wrote:

>> In Srimad BG our Lord Himself urges Arjuna to enter the

>> battle and provide extreme _himsai_ to his near and dear

>> ones, let alone some unknown animal.

>

>I do not see how it follows that because Krishna urged

>Arjuna to wage war in a particular situation, under a particular

>set of rules, with people ready to do battle, it then behooves

>one to rationalize harming an animal. In fact, ahimsA is

>extolled as a great virtue at least 2 or 3 times in the Gita.

 

You have used the phrase "under a particular set of rules"

for the convenience of your argument. Please permit

me the same liberty. "Under a particular set of rules"

Arjuna was indeed urged to kill his grandfather, brothers,

uncle, etc. "Under a particular set of rules" Sri Ramanuja

also says, animal sacrifice is not himsai to those animals.

I hope you see the relevance to topic under discussion.

More about what the topic is later. It is clears to me that

there is much confusion about this.

 

 

 

>> Further, our own

>> Sri Ramanuja says that animal sacrifice as in Agnishomiya

>> is good for the animal. Ref: Sri Rmaanuja Githa Bhashya

>> Chapter 2, Verse 31.

>

>And while Ramanuja did say this, one should ponder whether

>the acharya himself ever sacrificed an animal, or after doing

>so, ate its remains. I seriously doubt it. Ramanuja's

 

I would like to request Sri Mani to stick to what was said.

Nowhere did I say, either directly or indirectly, that

Sri Ramanuja himself performed such acts or encouraged

other to do so. I find such unprovoked speculation insulting.

What I _should_ ponder upon and what I _should_ not is best

left to me. Let us stay focused on what the position of our

poorvaacharas were when it comes to "ahimsai". The fact is,

Sri Ramanuja has written that "himsai" given in the course

of yagnas as prescribed by sasthras, is not "himsai" at all.

Further, it would be of benefit to such animals. This is clear

from Sri Rmaanuja Githa Bhashya Chapter 2, Verse 31.

In this context Kulasekaraazhvaar is quoted in the bhashya

as follows:

 

"vaaLaal aruththuch sudinum, maruththuvanpaal

maaLaadha kaathal nOyaaLan pOl".

 

"even as the physician cuts our body with their scalpel

 

and burn us, we still love them they cure our illness,.."

 

 

>adherence to the validity of animal sacrifice is not so much

>a commandment that we perform the same, but belief in the

>validity of the Vedic method for some purpose. Anything that

>can be achieved by animal sacrifice can be achieved by non-

>violent worship.

 

 

Sigh! I wonder whether this is deliberate or just careless.

Even a cursory reading of my post would indicate that

I was only trying to point out the difference between how "himsai"

is viewed by Sri Vaishnava acharays as opposed to others such

as Buddhists and Jains. I did not advocate, either directly or

indirectly, that animal sacrifice is great and everyone should run

out and start performing them.

 

 

> Further, the very thought of harming even

>a plant, even out of "AcArya-kainkarya" (service to one's guru)

>would cause the venerable Kuratt-Alvan to faint. It is said

>that Alvan would faint at seeing someone cut down a banana

>tree for its leaves, in utter sympathy for the plant.

 

There is no quarrel here. However, this has no bearing

to the main point of discussion, which is, is there a blanket

injunction against "himsai" in the same lines as Buddism

and Jainism. More about this later.

 

>

>> Then, we have the examples of Guhan and Dharmavyadhar.

>> Dharmavyadhar says,

>>

>> "The one who consumes meat after

>> offering it to Devas and Pithrus will

>> not incur any sin."

>

>We have to make a serious distinction between "no sin" and

>the "right thing to do". There is a difference. There are many

>things that are not sinful -- selfless action of any sort does

>not incur sin. One can kill an innocent someone without any

>self-interest; this may not be sinful, but it certainly isn't

>the right thing to do. The Gita and the Bharata can be easily

>misunderstood to mean that cold-blooded, calculated murder

>is OK, but a crime of passion is not, because the former is

>selfless but the latter is not! This could not be further from

>the truth.

 

 

More of irrelevant stuff. I have not said or implied any of this.

All that I tried to say was that our Sampradayam does not prohibit

all violence at all times under all circumstances, no matter

what. Can you deny this? If you deny this, then you have

to reject Srimad BG as well.

 

>

>> Thus, there is no blanket injunction

>> against himsai as in Buddism and Jainism.

>

>Yes there is!

 

If you think that Sri Ramanuja's view of what is

himsai is the same as that of Buddism and Jaininsm,

then you are wrong.

 

> At all costs we are to avoid violence --

>except when it is absolultely mandatory to preserve a higher

>good.

 

You are contradicting yourself. How can you say that

there is blanket injunction against himsai in our religion

and in the same breath say it is allowed to preserve

a higher good. If there is a blanket injunction as you

claim, then there is no higher good than "Ahimsai".

 

Here it is relevant to note that Sri Ramanuja makes

a distinction between bodily ahimsai and spiritual

ahimsai. Bodily himsai perfomred in the course of

sasthric yagna will result in the animal reaching a

higher spiritual plane. Thus, it is Sri Ramanuja's

view that, this particular type of bodily himsai is

no himsai at all.

 

> In this context, Vedic sacrifice is no longer necessary,

>and while not sinful, is deprecated. Waging war, while it

>may not be sinful, is not the right thing to do when the same

>can be accomplished at lesser cost by peaceful means.

 

 

This is more fluff. Once again, the point of the debate

is not whether one should start sacrificing animals, or

even whether sacrificing animals is better than non-violent

forms of worship. It is a subtle thing. What is our view

about animal sacrifice? Buddhism and Jainism totally

reject it out of hand. We don't. Do you see what I am

trying to say?

 

>

>> Please permit me to present another angle. Those who offer

>> meat to the Lord and then consume it as "prasadham" is a lot

>> better off than those who live as strict vegetarians without

>> ever touching even eggs, but have no time for perumaaL.

>

>What about those who engage in "bhUta-kainkarya", and avoid meat,

>without thinking about God too much, but those who slaughter animals

>mercilessly, and offer a little bit to God to appease their

>conscience? I would rather spend time with the former, as they

>are selflessly worshipping some mode of God in truth.

 

You may very well do that, but that is not the comparison I made.

Once again, you are twisting what I said. Sigh!! My point was,

between people like Dharmavyadhar and Guhan on the one hand, and

strict vegetarians who have no time for perumaaL on the other.

If you start blurring the contrast with "without thinking about

God too much" and "offer a little bit to God to appease" then

you are really trying to be smart with me.

 

>

>We can talk all we want about lions, but I refuse to believe

>that it is the natural state of some human beings to consume

>meat, and that it therefore should be tolerated. There is much

>evidence in sAstra against such a position.

 

This is really getting tiresome. I am fairly certain now that

you have completely misunderstood what I was trying to say.

 

>

>> In summary, please consider the possibility that it is possible

>> for prapannas to use silk for the pleasure our Lord Sriman Narayana.

>

>We can rationalize all that we like, just because it has

>tradition or the world's opinion in its favor. But I find it

>very hard to accept that SrIman nArAyaNa is happy with us causing

>unnecessary harm to thousands of His creatures, very often for us

>to "prove" our devotion by spending more money.

 

 

What will make Sriman Narayana happy can be understood by

approaching a qualified Acharya with humility and pondering

over what he teaches. Sriman Narayana Himself urged Arjuna

to cause bodily harm to thousands of His creatures. Why did

the Lord urge Arjuna to do that? When are such acts necessary?

Why are even seemingly noble acts such as total avoidance of

himsai to other living things is not effective when it comes

paramapurushartham?

 

Also, please note that perumaaL and Thayar routinely adorn silk

garments in many of our dhivya desams. Our Acharyas sit on

top of tiger skin mat. The first yagyopaveetham comes with a small

peace of deer skin. All these are current practices in kali yuga

accepted and encouraged by our Acharays.

 

 

>P.S. It should be noted that Sri Madhvacharya believed that

>grain models of animals could be used in sacrifices instead

>of real animals, and that this was the better way of conducting

>a Vedic sacrifice.

 

This is not accepted as Vedically valid by Sri Vaishnavas.

I can try to get the proper references if there is inteterest

and if I have the time.

 

 

-- Dileepan

 

 

Ram Gopalaswamy <gopalram asked:

>Could reference be provided from shrii. raamaanujaacaarya's works?

 

Ref: Sri Rmaanuja Githa Bhashya Chapter 2, Verse 31.

[Guest guest]

At 06:04 PM 7/30/1998 +0500, V. Chandrasekaran wrote:

>

>> Sri Dileepan wrote:

>> spiritual release does not come because of Vegetarianism. It comes

>> only through the grace of our sweet lord.

>

> The original post only meant that non-violence and hence vegetarianism

>is one of the pre-requisites for one's spiritual welfare. It wasn't meant

>that, it alone can lead one to parama padham.

 

 

Actually, vegetariasism is not even one of the pre-requisites for mOksham.

 

To understand a principle, we could apply it to an extreme situation.

If it holds in that extreme situation the principle must be true. However,

this does not mean we should start practicing that extreme situation.

>From Srmad RTS we learn that there are only two situations when

mOksham will be denied to a prapanna. They are, Bhaagavatha

Apacharam and Devathaanthra worship (which indicates lack of

faith, among other things). Note that violence and eating meat

are not in this list. Thus, non-violence and vegetarianism are

not prerequisites, per se. Of course, no one is advocating that

a prapana must go out and start killing and eating meat. It is

almost certain that no prapanna would ever do any such thing.

 

Ahimsai, vegetarianism, et al. are part of being a Sri Vaishnava.

They must be adopted. They help in our spiritual

progress, physical well being, etc., etc. However, there is

no need to worship it. There are many other more important

pre-requisites. Ahimsai, almost always is a by-product of

some of these.

 

-- adiyEn

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavathas,

Namaskarams.

Sri Mani's and Sri Anbil's responses with regard to the subject

"ahimsa, use of silk etc.," were insightful. I would like to lay

my doubts and thoughts in this mail with regard to this. Bhagavathas

pls. respond with your opinions and knowledge.

> Sri Dileepan wrote:

> spiritual release does not come because of Vegetarianism. It comes

> only through the grace of our sweet lord.

 

The original post only meant that non-violence and hence vegetarianism

is one of the pre-requisites for one's spiritual welfare. It wasn't meant

that, it alone can lead one to parama padham.

> Sri Dileepan wrote:

> "Agni likes meat. Therefore, the

> brahmins kill goats and offer the

> meat to Agni. Those "yaaga pasus"

> reach Svargam because they are

> killed after having undergone proper

> samskaram."

 

I have some misgivings regarding how yag~nam leads one to his

goal. These are some doubts I have. Knowledgeable members please

show some light:

 

Is not agni an inert component of this prakriti? How can

it have likes and dislikes?! What actual philosophy lies behind this

presumption that agni likes meat etc.? Isn't it true that sacrifices

bring about welfare only out of self-satisfaction.

> Sri Dileepan wrote:

> In summary, please consider the possibility that it is possible

> for prapannas to use silk for the pleasure our Lord Sriman Narayana.

 

In Truth, Sriman Narayana is the Divine Inner Self, in which the

`deluded' I endeavour to abide. Then whose pleasure is it?

 

About Ahimsa:

It is said that `ahimsa' not only means non-injury to a physical body

born out of `prakriti' but even `not hurting' other's mind. i.e, Even

infliction caused to other's mind is considered `himsa' which should be

avoided.

 

Some ponderings: Please post your opinions/corrections.

Mind is but a bundle of thoughts which doesn't have its own existence

without the Consciousness that illumines all the experiences. So it is

the ahamkAra which is at a plane higher in subtlety than mind that gives

this impression of `getting inflicted' when someone says something `hurting'.

Thoughts being product of ahamkAra a train load of weighty thoughts follow

sometimes even growing in its weightiness to unhealthy levels.

When the doership is renounced there should be no infliction felt, upon the

so-called `us'.

 

adiyEn,

chandrasekaran.