Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Namnaste Ben and all I quite like your 'reconciliation' between science and miracles. I tend to agree with you that these are distractions....so I'll limit my indulgence to a few lines. Miracles like a barren woman's son cannot happen. Miracle does not bend laws set in motion in 'this world' by the SELF. Certain events have a potential to happen albeit with very low odds - say as low as one in a zillion. Examples like a miraculous revcovery, some person materialising and helping me out when I am lost and vanishing after the job is done etc. I remember from Ramana Maharshi's dialogues that from the stand point of a lay person The Saint may be seen to be performing miracles. But the saint himself would not be taking 'ownership'. He would query ' do you think Jesus would will miracles to happen or have said I performed these miracles - though they may be happening in his precense ?'. Having said that I am yet to come to grips with the Sea parting for Moses and Infant Krishna. But then, in a sense, everything we see and perceive, like the Sun rising, a tree coming up from a seed, the fragrance in a rose, the love that wells up in ones heart..... are these themselves not miracles at which we have stopped wondering every moment. MAny thousand Pranams to all Sridhar > > Please note that it is unscientific to say that so- called 'miracles' > or deviations from the customary laws of physics NEVER occur. All > the scientist can do is observe what *tends* to occur in his > laboratory under controlled circumstances. In other words, > statistics. However, these statistics can be assumed to operate > %99.999 of the time and are pretty good at explaining our mundane > world. > > Either way, I don't think that miracles have much bearing on > enlightenment. They are more likely to be a distraction. Still, I > am intrigued to find them in books such as Yogananda's Autobiography, > since I consider him an honest person. It makes me wonder. > > If consciousness survives the death of the body, then that is surely > a miracle to the materialist. If it doesn't survive, it is a > catastrophe for everybody! > > Hari Om! > Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Namaste Chittaranjanji and all I am truly worried. Not having studied or understood Vedas, I was by and large satisfied with a simplistic explanation that a lot of wrong practices and rituals of today are due to wrong/misguided interpretations of our scriptures over time. If my modern education makes me abhor religious rites involving Animal sacrifices, I would not be apolegetic. Rather,I would thank God for the modern education which will allow me to keep elevating spiritual practices by elevating them to a higher plane after discerning the principles behind what was prescribed in rituals. I tend to agree with another person who has posted here that we extract the principle of ' sacrificing/ renouncing/ giving up' something we hold very dear to us rather than take the need for animal sacrifice literally. In the Kali yuga you do not need to perform 100 yagas to get Indra Padavi and move upwards from there on. Nama Japa, even in not so pure conditions is promised a s a means for liberation. The reason 'my' mind is repulsed by the idea of Animal sacrifices is two fold. 1. It will be against Dharma and living in harmony with elements that Vedas speak about. 2. There are dangers and We could stretch the logic for animal sacrifice further to - child sacrifice, Honour sacrifice ( a practise known in some villages where a vigin girl has to run naked in the village to bring forth rains), Sati...... and oh my god! let me stop here. We are here to evolve and not to go back in time in terms of human values. My apologies in advance if I have given a wrong interpretation to a well meaning dissertation. As has been demonstrated before I could be quite an ignoramus. Many thousand Namaskarams to all advaitins Sridhar advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > Namaste Mohanji, > > It is true that a number of sacrifices mentioned in the Vedas are to > be understood in symbolic terms. But we also need to recognise that > there is the question of valuation that influences our > interpretations of the Vedas. The valuation instilled in us by our > modern education makes us abhor religious rites involving animal > sacrifice, with the result that we tend to become apologetic when we > come across such passages in our Agamas. But I believe that adherence > to truth is more important than apologetic hermeneutics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 My profound Namaskarasm to Sridharji, We are at a stage we dont know how many times interpretations had been taken place. Especially when this country had been looted by foreing invaders. There are many people in our country who hate The Great Manu. Whatever is injuncted by Manu is alright. The only thing is that at this juncture it may look wrong after passing thousands of generations because our previous generations had also observed them because of Western thinking and their interpretation of our Dharmik Granthas. So I wonder with our little knowledge if we dont follow the injunctions of Vedas and great Law Makers Manu, what will happen to our forthcoming generations. May God save this country. The only thing is that we have to take the help of highly learned people like Peethadhipatis. It is quite natural to get a dobut that why Vedas prescribed animal sacrifice. May be it is symbalising Tyaga Bhavana. We are back to Vedas more than thousand centuries. Vedas to be understood in vedic sense. Forgive me if my opinions hurt anybody. Also I request all to forgive me if there are any mistakes in my write-up. Sorry for taking the liberty to address this group which has highly learned people. Many many pranams to all members, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Dear Sridharji, I understand the sentiments behind your words. But we need not worry so much about these things because animal sacrifices are not part of nitya karma for people like us and they don't have to be compulsorily performed. You and I have been spared! :-) But seriously, I think the topic is not as simplistic as it seems. Why is it that we all get worked up about animal sacrifices in the Vedas when at the same time we go about our lives with the blase acceptance of the fact that more than a million animals are killed every day for the mere pleasures of gluttonous dinners? How many of us feel the scale of animal sacrifice that takes place when we spray millions of insects for obtaining bountiful crops? It is sad, but life is like that! Look around you and everywhere you will see this dark aspect of life - that life feeds on life, that one animal must experience the stark fear of staring into the face of its predator, that it must experience this cold feeling of being annihilated only to feed another animal for a mere day. Why indeed has the Creator created such a cruel world? When we have an answer to this question, then perhaps shall we be able to judge the meaning of animal sacrifice in the Vedas. Animal sacrifice has nothing to do with liberation. It is part of karma-khanda which is the way of right actions in the flow of samsara. In this context, it is not against dharma to follow the injunctions of the Vedas. The Vedas define dharma. By the same logic, it is against dharma to stretch the meanings of the Vedas to perform motivated sacrifices that are not mentioned therein. What is recommended for the Kali Yuga by the Smritis does not negate the Vedas, they only recognise the fact that in Kali Yuga people are confused and accordingly they prescribe suitable means for people to rise within the context of this confused state of affairs. It is not my aim here to countenance the killing of animals, but it is obligatory for us to understand what "apaurusheya" means before we go about giving our own personalised meanings to the Vedas. With regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote: > Namaste Chittaranjanji and all > I am truly worried. Not having studied or understood Vedas, I was > by and large satisfied with a simplistic explanation that a lot of > wrong practices and rituals of today are due to wrong/misguided > interpretations of our scriptures over time. > > If my modern education makes me abhor religious rites involving > Animal sacrifices, I would not be apolegetic. Rather,I would thank > God for the modern education which will allow me to keep elevating > spiritual practices by elevating them to a higher plane after > discerning the principles behind what was prescribed in rituals. > I tend to agree with another person who has posted here that we > extract the principle of ' sacrificing/ renouncing/ giving up' > something we hold very dear to us rather than take the need for > animal sacrifice literally. > > In the Kali yuga you do not need to perform 100 yagas to get Indra > Padavi and move upwards from there on. Nama Japa, even in not so pure > conditions is promised a s a means for liberation. > > The reason 'my' mind is repulsed by the idea of Animal sacrifices is > two fold. > 1. It will be against Dharma and living in harmony with elements > that Vedas speak about. > 2. There are dangers and We could stretch the logic for animal > sacrifice further to - child sacrifice, Honour sacrifice ( a practise > known in some villages where a vigin girl has to run naked in the > village to bring forth rains), Sati...... and oh my god! let me stop > here. We are here to evolve and not to go back in time in terms of > human values. > > My apologies in advance if I have given a wrong interpretation to a > well meaning dissertation. As has been demonstrated before I could be > quite an ignoramus. > > Many thousand Namaskarams to all advaitins > Sridhar > > > advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" > <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > > Namaste Mohanji, > > > > It is true that a number of sacrifices mentioned in the Vedas are > to > > be understood in symbolic terms. But we also need to recognise that > > there is the question of valuation that influences our > > interpretations of the Vedas. The valuation instilled in us by our > > modern education makes us abhor religious rites involving animal > > sacrifice, with the result that we tend to become apologetic when > we > > come across such passages in our Agamas. But I believe that > adherence > > to truth is more important than apologetic hermeneutics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Namaste Mohanji, There are two crucial points you have touched upon in your post. You have rightly stressed the importance of the mantras and the sound of the mantras in performing Vedic sacrifices. But you've also mentioned that you like to look at animal sacrifice in the Vedas as a kind of cult-phenomena with limited following, and this is the subject on which I feel something needs to be said. While I agree with you that animal sacrifice might not have been as prevalent in Vedic culture as our discussions here might have made it appear, at the same time I think your classification of Vedic animal sacrifice as some kind of a 'cult' makes us obliged to return to the topic of Vedic sacrifice. It calls for focusing not so much on the Vedas, but on our own propensities of "liking" to look at the Vedas in a certain manner. We all have our likes and dislikes that are influenced not only by our individual leanings but also by our upbringing, education, culture and experience in life. Unfortunately these likings become the lenses through which we look at the Vedas. But the Vedas are apaurusheya -- they are not of human origin, and it demands that we keep aside our likings when we look at them. The Veda is to be looked upon as the Unquestionable. That is the foundation of the supreme faith that the Mimamsa Philosophers had in the Vedas, and it is the unmovable basis on which the Vedas become the highest authority and the foremost of the pramanas for Vedanta. What does it mean to say that the Vedas are eternal and apaurusheya? I am not a qualified person to explain its meaning, and if I make an attempt here it is only because I strongly feel that the kind of liberal interpretations being given to the Vedas is not commensurate with the nature of Vedas as apaurusheya. The Vedas are not created: they are Shruti, they are what is heard. Even with all our limitations we must still try to understand what this means before we pass our judgments on the Vedas. Now, where are the Vedas heard? They are surely heard when the brahmins chant them, but that chanting is only the tuning-in to the resonance of the Vedas that resides eternally in Brahman. The Vedas are there in the para state even in the dissolution of the universe -- the para is the subtlest of the four states of "the word", the other three being pashyanti, madhyama and vaikari. The Mahabhasya of Patanjali states that the para state of the word is where it remains in identity with Brahman. Within creation, the Veda is the throb of creation, the spanda or eternal vibration in the heart of Reality. The Vedas come down to us from the Vedic seers that heard them in the Heart of Being. What they heard is apaurusheya because they did not hear these sounds as persons do, they heard them by dispossessing themselves of the masks of persona and becoming completely transparent to the sphurana of Brahman. That is why the Veda is apaurusheya – no person (or mask of persona) stands between the sphurana of Brahman and the Veda that has come down to us. That is why the Veda is to be chanted with such metrical and phonetic purity - – so that it may find resonance with the eternal spanda of Brahman -- for the Veda is the eternal voice of Brahman. With regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, S Mohan <mohanirmala> wrote: > Pranams to Advaitins, > In continuing the discussion on the Vedas ... some clarity on a particular aspect would be welcome ..... > The Vedas are said to comprise broadly two parts .. the 'Karma Kanda' ( comprising the Brahmanas and Aranyakas) and the 'Jnana Kanda' ( comprising the Upanishads ..also known as Vedanta). > The current discussion is presumably regarding the Karma Kanda. The most significant aspects of the Karma Kanda are the Mantras and the Rituals( or Prescribed Processes). > For the last 15 years on various occasions I have been fortunate to be able to participate in various such events , sometimes as an observer, and some times as the Main Performer ( Yajamana ). At first I was just a mute participant , mechanically doing the things advised by the purohit. In the last few years a change is visible. I have started taking the mantras and the processes quite seriously. A great curiosity has developed to learn and understand it all a little better. Also I have been reading Paramacharya's discourses on this subject. > The important thing that strikes one is the crucial part of Mantras. The processes are more in the form of an adjunct meant to ensure some purification of the place, and one's person but more importantly to focus one's attention to the moment. It is the mantra that plays a key role in the fulfilment of the objective, it appears. The power of sound in making things happen . We depend on the correctness of the sound patterns on the vaidika or purohit. But it seems likely that the sound vibrations produced by the mantras are potent in influencing the result. > At the individual level also it is important. In the personal meditation and performance of Ashtanga Yoga the mantra is important. > But at the large scale level or universal level, one can easily imagine how very important it can be. > There may be a lot of truth in what is stated about the benefits of the ritualistic approach. I have had the opportunity to witness the performance of some pretty large scale such Vedic rituals in recent years. In no case, to the best of my knowledge, has any animal sacrifice taken place. > There are cults , perhaps all over the world, today and may have been there in the past , where such animal or ( like the Maya civilisations ) human sacrifices were and are prevalent. But I like to look at such cases as ' cults ' , that is, limited groupings . In the universal level which the Vedas represent, there is complete purity and respect for all forms of life. The benefits of the rituals are supposed to benefit all of creation. But benefit to the world can only come from sacrifice of narrow sectarianism and limited approachs. That may be what the Vedas are talking about. > This is just a humble un-informed view . Your comments and corrections are welcome. > Warm regards and pranams > Mohan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Pranams Naikji, Thanks for a very detailed clarification ... At the outset may I clear a small misunderstanding that may have unwittingly crept in due to my wording ... 'There are cults , perhaps all over the world, today and may have been there in the past , where such animal or ( like the Maya civilisations ) human sacrifices were and are prevalent. But I like to look at such cases as ' cults ' , that is, limited groupings . In the universal level which the Vedas represent, there is complete purity and respect for all forms of life.' I was not implying that the Vedic sacrifice had anything to do with these cults . I meant that these may be what one could call 'de- generated ' behaviour not at all related to the Vedas. I appreciate all that you have said and your confirmation that the mantra is all important in the Karma Kanda. However, is it because of our inability to comprehend the language used which accounts for the difference of opinion ? I know a lot of very detailed research has taken place and is going on even today. Just as there have been Bhashyas on the various Upanishads have there been any interpretations of the Mantras in the Karma Kanda ? Would appreciate your advice. However, I also appreciate your point that the Vedas are 'aupurusheya' and logic and analysis are not the tools for dealing with them ..rather it is faith which will be the best approach. The problem is that the way we are educated and live life nowadays , the mind searches all the time for 'meanings' which we can understand and tends to shy away from 'belief'! We draw parallels with day-to-day examples and metaphors to explain everything we read or hear about. This approach fails when it comes to the Vedas , particularly the sukthas and mantras. How are we to deal with modern man and his questioning , particularly in respect of the Vedic mantras? Could it be that with our adherence to the methodology prescribed we create faith in others? Regards and pranams Mohan advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > Namaste Mohanji, > > There are two crucial points you have touched upon in your post. You > have rightly stressed the importance of the mantras and the sound of > the mantras in performing Vedic sacrifices. But you've also mentioned > that you like to look at animal sacrifice in the Vedas as a kind of > cult-phenomena with limited following, and this is the subject on > which I feel something needs to be said. > > While I agree with you that animal sacrifice might not have been as > prevalent in Vedic culture as our discussions here might have made it > appear, at the same time I think your classification of Vedic animal > sacrifice as some kind of a 'cult' makes us obliged to return to the > topic of Vedic sacrifice. It calls for focusing not so much on the > Vedas, but on our own propensities of "liking" to look at the Vedas > in a certain manner. We all have our likes and dislikes that are > influenced not only by our individual leanings but also by our > upbringing, education, culture and experience in life. Unfortunately > these likings become the lenses through which we look at the Vedas. > But the Vedas are apaurusheya -- they are not of human origin, and it > demands that we keep aside our likings when we look at them. The Veda > is to be looked upon as the Unquestionable. That is the foundation of > the supreme faith that the Mimamsa Philosophers had in the Vedas, and > it is the unmovable basis on which the Vedas become the highest > authority and the foremost of the pramanas for Vedanta. > > What does it mean to say that the Vedas are eternal and apaurusheya? > I am not a qualified person to explain its meaning, and if I make an > attempt here it is only because I strongly feel that the kind of > liberal interpretations being given to the Vedas is not commensurate > with the nature of Vedas as apaurusheya. > > The Vedas are not created: they are Shruti, they are what is heard. > Even with all our limitations we must still try to understand what > this means before we pass our judgments on the Vedas. Now, where are > the Vedas heard? They are surely heard when the brahmins chant them, > but that chanting is only the tuning-in to the resonance of the Vedas > that resides eternally in Brahman. The Vedas are there in the para > state even in the dissolution of the universe -- the para is the > subtlest of the four states of "the word", the other three being > pashyanti, madhyama and vaikari. The Mahabhasya of Patanjali states > that the para state of the word is where it remains in identity with > Brahman. Within creation, the Veda is the throb of creation, the > spanda or eternal vibration in the heart of Reality. > > The Vedas come down to us from the Vedic seers that heard them in the > Heart of Being. What they heard is apaurusheya because they did not > hear these sounds as persons do, they heard them by dispossessing > themselves of the masks of persona and becoming completely > transparent to the sphurana of Brahman. That is why the Veda is > apaurusheya – no person (or mask of persona) stands between the > sphurana of Brahman and the Veda that has come down to us. That is > why the Veda is to be chanted with such metrical and phonetic purity - > – so that it may find resonance with the eternal spanda of Brahman -- > for the Veda is the eternal voice of Brahman. > > With regards, > Chittaranjan > > > > advaitin, S Mohan <mohanirmala> wrote: > > Pranams to Advaitins, > > In continuing the discussion on the Vedas ... some clarity on a > particular aspect would be welcome ..... > > The Vedas are said to comprise broadly two parts .. the 'Karma > Kanda' ( comprising the Brahmanas and Aranyakas) and the 'Jnana > Kanda' ( comprising the Upanishads ..also known as Vedanta). > > The current discussion is presumably regarding the Karma Kanda. The > most significant aspects of the Karma Kanda are the Mantras and the > Rituals( or Prescribed Processes). > > For the last 15 years on various occasions I have been fortunate to > be able to participate in various such events , sometimes as an > observer, and some times as the Main Performer ( Yajamana ). At first > I was just a mute participant , mechanically doing the things advised > by the purohit. In the last few years a change is visible. I have > started taking the mantras and the processes quite seriously. A great > curiosity has developed to learn and understand it all a little > better. Also I have been reading Paramacharya's discourses on this > subject. > > The important thing that strikes one is the crucial part of > Mantras. The processes are more in the form of an adjunct meant to > ensure some purification of the place, and one's person but more > importantly to focus one's attention to the moment. It is the mantra > that plays a key role in the fulfilment of the objective, it appears. > The power of sound in making things happen . We depend on the > correctness of the sound patterns on the vaidika or purohit. But it > seems likely that the sound vibrations produced by the mantras are > potent in influencing the result. > > At the individual level also it is important. In the personal > meditation and performance of Ashtanga Yoga the mantra is important. > > But at the large scale level or universal level, one can easily > imagine how very important it can be. > > There may be a lot of truth in what is stated about the benefits of > the ritualistic approach. I have had the opportunity to witness the > performance of some pretty large scale such Vedic rituals in recent > years. In no case, to the best of my knowledge, has any animal > sacrifice taken place. > > There are cults , perhaps all over the world, today and may have > been there in the past , where such animal or ( like the Maya > civilisations ) human sacrifices were and are prevalent. But I like > to look at such cases as ' cults ' , that is, limited groupings . In > the universal level which the Vedas represent, there is complete > purity and respect for all forms of life. The benefits of the rituals > are supposed to benefit all of creation. But benefit to the world can > only come from sacrifice of narrow sectarianism and limited > approachs. That may be what the Vedas are talking about. > > This is just a humble un-informed view . Your comments and > corrections are welcome. > > Warm regards and pranams > > Mohan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 chittaranjanji...namaste.. U said.."The Vedas come down to us from the Vedic seers that heard them in the Heart of Being. " I agree with you fully. This is one experiences that many of the spiritual aspirants wud have had.That is when u meditate...the kundli awakens and when it reaches the anahat chakra in the heart people do hear the AKAASHWANI...or the divine voice..certainly it is apaurashya. > Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: > Namaste Mohanji, List Moderator Note: Lengthy previous messages expunged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 advaitin, "mohanirmala" <mohanirmala> wrote: > Pranams Naikji, > Thanks for a very detailed clarification ... > > I was not implying that the Vedic sacrifice had anything to do with > these cults . I meant that these may be what one could call 'de- > generated ' behaviour not at all related to the Vedas. Namaste, S. Radhakrihnan (in The Principal Upanishads) quotes Anandagiri : "....this permission was due to local conditions - desha- visheShApekShayA kAla-visheShApekShayA vA ma.nsa-niyamaH ..." Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Namaste Shri. Chittaranjan Your words are as always delighting and soothing. I too cannot yet accept the mass slaughtering of animals and all the other such problems that you have so well captured. I do believe that Saints in different ages do give a new meaning ( or do they bring out a latent meaning or present it in a different light) according to the times. For Instance, Swami Chinmayananda never tired of exhorting - I am presenting this from memory : When Krishna says you must perform yajna - it will be silly to interpret it as krishna exhorting arjuna to perform rituals.There are many scholars who have interpreted Yajna as rituals - plain and simple- done in a yajna shala etc. The real meaning in all its beauty and grandeur comes out only if we interpret Yajna as activity undertaken to invoke productive potential in one's chosen field of action . It should be performed without attachment to the results etc. Thus my work could be a yajna. A wife could devote her life to managing home affairs with yajna bhava. Hence, coming back to where i started, my question is, along similar lines, is it not possible to see the prescription for sacrifices in a higher light rather than take prescribed rituals for animal sacrifice literally. The head accepts your logic that we cannot read revealed knowledge differently. The heart struggles to accept and fails . I guess this is one more of those things that I file away as 'To be resolved on realizing Self' Many thousand namaskarams to all advaitins. Sridhar advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > Dear Sridharji, > > I understand the sentiments behind your words. But we need not worry > so much about these things because animal sacrifices are not part of > nitya karma for people like us and they don't have to be compulsorily > performed. You and I have been spared! :-) > > But seriously, I think the topic is not as simplistic as it seems. > Why is it that we all get worked up about animal sacrifices in the > Vedas when at the same time we go about our lives with the blase > acceptance of the fact that more than a million animals are killed > every day for the mere pleasures of gluttonous dinners? How many of > us feel the scale of animal sacrifice that takes place when we spray > millions of insects for obtaining bountiful crops? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Namaste Mohanji, I have this fault of occasionally not being able to keep my words on a leash. My apologies for any hurt that I may have caused by my strong wording. In regards of the Vedas, I believe that the mind cannot understand it, and therefore academic research that is based on the intellections of the mind will not be able to understand it. The Vedas can perhaps be understood by returning to the nativity of the Self. I do not know, and I really meant it when I said that I am not qualified to say much on this subject. I do not even know Sanskrit. But some intuition tells me that to understand the Mantras one has to go to the source where Shakti performs Her living magic from the Heart of Shiva. You ask about faith and reason and the predilection of the modern man. But is there in truth a divorce between faith and reason? Isn't reason the means to return to faith? All this world is verily the faith of the Self, and reason is our vehicle to go back home to the fixity of that Faith. In the cave of the heart, reason is one with the faithful heart. What is reason? It is a questioning and a discovering. But what does a question question? If the questioning heart must ever come to rest, it must have within itself that stamp of truth by which it judges the answer to be true. That stamp is the answer. That judgment is the nyaya of reason. That truth which is stamped on the soul is the world projected outward and which it now questions. That stamp is the original faith to which the lost soul now returns by the light of reason in the mystical union of the bride soul with her lord, the Self. The fracture of faith is the questioning of reason, and the binding of faith is the gift of the answering reason. But reason does not remain in that union, it merges into the heart while the soul dances with light steps in the gardens of Elysium. We are the children of Light groping in the darkness of the unreal. We need reason to cleave the darkness and be born into Light. Yet reason is a circuitous route to the truth. Faith and love is the shorter route because unswerving Faithfulness and unbounded Love is the very nature of Truth. Reason in Kali Yuga has been ransacked by the asuras. The asuras were once out there in the world, and today they are here in the stitches of our minds. Therefore has it been said that in Kali Yuga, Bhakti is the easier path to the Radiant One. These are the outpourings of a foolish heart that has not learnt to be a complete fool. :-) With warm regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, "mohanirmala" <mohanirmala> wrote: > Pranams Naikji, > Thanks for a very detailed clarification ... > > At the outset may I clear a small misunderstanding that may have > unwittingly crept in due to my wording ... > 'There are cults , perhaps all over the world, today and may have > been there in > the past , where such animal or ( like the Maya civilisations ) > human sacrifices > were and are prevalent. But I like to look at such cases as ' > cults ' , that is, > limited groupings . In the universal level which the Vedas > represent, there is > complete purity and respect for all forms of life.' > > I was not implying that the Vedic sacrifice had anything to do with > these cults . I meant that these may be what one could call 'de- > generated ' behaviour not at all related to the Vedas. > > I appreciate all that you have said and your confirmation that the > mantra is all important in the Karma Kanda. However, is it because > of our inability to comprehend the language used which accounts for > the difference of opinion ? I know a lot of very detailed research > has taken place and is going on even today. Just as there have been > Bhashyas on the various Upanishads have there been any > interpretations of the Mantras in the Karma Kanda ? > > Would appreciate your advice. > > However, I also appreciate your point that the Vedas > are 'aupurusheya' and logic and analysis are not the tools for > dealing with them ..rather it is faith which will be the best > approach. The problem is that the way we are educated and live life > nowadays , the mind searches all the time for 'meanings' which we > can understand and tends to shy away from 'belief'! We draw > parallels with day-to-day examples and metaphors to explain > everything we read or hear about. This approach fails when it comes > to the Vedas , particularly the sukthas and mantras. > > How are we to deal with modern man and his questioning , > particularly in respect of the Vedic mantras? Could it be that with > our adherence to the methodology prescribed we create faith in > others? > Regards and pranams > Mohan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Namaste Vasuji, I believe in something that is appealing to my intellect. I am not asking your nor anybody to accept my way of thinking, neither am I an animal rights activist. Nor am I campaigning for vegetarianism. But please don't expect me to blind myself to everything and live life simply because that's the way its presented to me. That's a fatalistic attitude and I am not a total fatalist. we always have a element of choice and to question, and we must exercise that , so our higher self is realized. otherwise we are no better than the lamb that is led to the slaughter house and this human birth is a waste. I will accept and cannot help, but be awed by the depth and profoundness in the discussion of Atman in the Upanishads. But that's about it. I want to go no further and try to justify what seems to be sheer butchery. Again, this is only my personal opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs. Best Regards Guruprasad vasu145 <vasu145 wrote: Namaste Guru Venkat ji See Sir, we are no body to decide why Vedas suggested animal sacrifice and in what sense. Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. 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.