Attitude of Actionlessness --(Was "What Vedas are not")

[Guest guest]

Namaste

I would like this to be a new thread branching off from

‘What Vedas are not’  so that we all may come back to

advaita instead of doing ‘academic research on animal

sacrifices in the vedas’. That this thread actually is the

final meeting point of many of the posts regarding the

subject of animal sacrifices, is clear from the following

quotes from some of the later posts on ‘What Vedas are

not’:

 

“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” Chittaranjan Naik #21013.

 

“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.” Mohanji -#21015

 

“ Now if to thee a doubt as to a deed, or a doubt as to

conduct, should occur, as the brahmanas there -- who are

thoughtful, zealous, well-versed, not hard (at heart),

desirous of Dharma -- would act in such matters, so there

shalt thou act.”  Taittiriyopanishad, quoted by Sunderji

#21019

 “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.” –A Sridhar #21020

>From these quotes it is clear that we have, as we should,

come back to the advaitic point of view. That is the only

way we could rest at peace with the various ‘confusions’

that are apparently all over our scriptures. The powerful

Gita shloka XVIII-17 is the answer. By not understanding it

properly many a beginner reader of the Gita has mistaken

Gita to be propounding violence. The shloka is

 

Yasya nAhaMkRto bhAvo buddhir-yasya na lipyate /

hatvApi sa imAn lokAn na hanti na nibadhyate //

 

Whoever has the “I-am-not-the-doer” feeling, and whose

intellect is not swayed (by the ephemaralities of this

world), even though he might have slain the whole world, he

has not slain, nor is he bound.

 

Careful readers of the Gita would know that this

actionlessness is a concept that lies in the central core

of the teaching of the Gita. He who has identified himself

with the “akshara-purusha” (witness, sAkshI) within, has no

more any responsibility,agency, or proprietorship in the

actions that the body does and so is not bound  -- this the

Lord says is his own way of doing things (IV-13 and 14 and

IX-9). And He keeps this as the model of action for us. In

the very beginning he cites this actionless role for the

Atman itself in II-19.  And in the final chapter shloka 19

quoted above, he makes this as The goal for the spiritual

aspirant. And all along the Gita He finds occasions to

express the same thing in various different ways:

 

Ch.IV -18, 19, 20,21,22,33, 36, 37, 41.

Ch.V – 7,8,9,10,11 (these four constitute a description, in

slow motion, of How to act), and  13.

Ch.13 – 29, 31

Ch.18 – 9,11, 13, 14,15 (These three form a theory of

Action), 16, 17, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 (these five form a

final summary of the argument of actionlessness, for Arjuna

and therefore for us).

 

And note “Actionlessness” is not non-action. (III-4).

Krishna cites His own example (III-22).

 

In understanding our scriptures three things  are important

and should never be forgotten:

 

1.     Mantras are everything for Hindu religion. The power

of the mantras can never be overstated. Intellectual

analysis here may not be of much help.

 

2.     The Teaching (of advaita) that everything other than

the Self is only a transient appearance, means, in actual

practice that (a) we should take all our obligations

seriously and (b) we should take all happenings(to us)

lightly. This applies to both karma kANDa as well as jnAna

kANDa of the Vedas.

 

3.     The “nAham kartA” “nAham bhoktA” attitude – in all

our dealings. This is the summum bonum of karma yoga.

 

Let me stop here so that other scholars and seekers  can

take up the thread and improve it now.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

 

profvk

 

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

Also see the webpages on Paramacharya's Soundaryalahari :

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/DPDS.html

[Guest guest]

Namaste Professorji

This is a very timely thought. One of the baffling subjects, for me

atleast is ' Karma Yoga' in the context of everyday living. The lead

is wonderful. I hope to post some questions that have been brewing

and churning in my mind ( while also admitting that i may not be good

at answering)if the topic ' Attitude of actionlessness' can be

enlarged to an enquiry into application in the work a day life.

Many many thousand PRanams to all advaitins

Sridhar

>

> 1.     Mantras are everything for Hindu religion. The power

> of the mantras can never be overstated. Intellectual

> analysis here may not be of much help.

>

> 2.     The Teaching (of advaita) that everything other than

> the Self is only a transient appearance, means, in actual

> practice that (a) we should take all our obligations

> seriously and (b) we should take all happenings(to us)

> lightly. This applies to both karma kANDa as well as jnAna

> kANDa of the Vedas.

>

> 3.     The "nAham kartAnAham bhoktA" attitude – in all

> our dealings. This is the summum bonum of karma yoga.

>

> Let me stop here so that other scholars and seekers  can

> take up the thread and improve it now.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins

>

> profvk

>

>

>

> =====

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Krishnamurthy-ji and other members

> Careful readers of the Gita would know that this

> actionlessness is a concept that lies in the central core

> of the teaching of the Gita. He who has identified himself

> with the "akshara-purusha" (witness, sAkshI) within, has no

> more any responsibility,agency, or proprietorship in the

> actions that the body does and so is not bound  -- this the

> Lord says is his own way of doing things (IV-13 and 14 and

> IX-9). And He keeps this as the model of action for us. In

> the very beginning he cites this actionless role for the

> Atman itself in II-19.  And in the final chapter shloka 19

> quoted above, he makes this as The goal for the spiritual

> aspirant. And all along the Gita He finds occasions to

> express the same thing in various different ways:

 

I want to quote a Sloka from the bhagavad gIta jNAna yoga chapter and

this Sloka happens to be my favourite. Please note that as I am not

well versed in Sanskrit, I might make mistakes for which I apologize

in advance -

 

brahmArpaNaM brahmahavihi brahmAgnObrahmaNAhutaM |

brahmaivatEnagantavyaM brahmakarmasamAdhinAM ||

 

 

Regards

Raghavendra

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

>

>

> 2.     The Teaching (of advaita) that everything other than

> the Self is only a transient appearance, means, in actual

> practice that (a) we should take all our obligations

> seriously and (b) we should take all happenings(to us)

> lightly. This applies to both karma kANDa as well as jnAna

> kANDa of the Vedas.

>

 

Namaste, Professorji.

 

I am sure I am missing something here. I cannot easily see the

connection between the first part and the second part of this. I

would be grateful if you can elaborate a little more.

 

Regards,

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

Although it represents a new line of thinking, the suggested

connection between the `actionlessness' of Bhagwad GItA and the

ahimsA in Vedas sounds untenable for the following reasons:

 

1. Bhagwad GItA deals with karma yOga – mastery over actions whereby

they cease to entrap the performer in the vicious clutches of

reactions and results. The logic of it all is very clear to any

enquiring mind. The sacrifices prescribed in the vEdAs are meant for

the achievement of specific mundane goals, which have their own

trappings. They are prescriptions for all and sundry and not special

sAdhana for vEdantins who are after the Ultimate. Arjuna was a

vEdantin warrior. Karma yOga was very relevant to him on the

battleground where he was all set to exterminate his kith and kin.

He couldn't baulk at it because that was the action destiny demanded

of him as a kshatriya. The same scenario cannot be applied to vEdic

rituals performed with desires for specific, limited ends.

 

2. Besides, VyAsa has not claimed that his `actionlessness'

justified vEdic sacrifices although there are references to

sacrifices in the Bhagwad GItA.

 

3. VEdAs are claimed to be apourushEya whereas Bhagwad GItA has a

known author in VyAsa. The former are therefore to be considered

ageless whereas the latter can be placed in time. Something

pourushEya (even if it belongs to the prastAnatraya) cannot be

suggested to support or sustain something apourushEya. The vice

versa can be true. The defence for the latter (apourushEya) should,

therefore, exist in itself and not outside it. It would, therefore,

be interesting to see if there exists any justification for animal

sacrifices in the apourushEya Upanishads which constitute vedAnta and

with which we, as advaitins, are more concerned than with the karma

kAnda.

 

4. If a particular animal is to be sacrificed for a particular goal,

then some logical explanation should exist why another animal or an

inanimate substitute cannot be used. We see that our ancient

pUjavidhIs have changed with changing times. For a vEdantin anything

that is sacrificed is brahmArpaNam. Why should it be a horse when a

non-living thing can be offered with equal advaitic equanimity in

full love for the Ultimate? No vEdantin deriving inspiration from the

Bhagwad GItA can be expected to embark on a ritual just in the name

of `actionless action' when the logic of it all is simply beyond

him. The Bhagwad GItA which calls out "SarvadharmAn parityAjya

mAmeKam sharaNam vraja" cannot be seen to impose another ritualistic

dharma as an area for the practice of `actionless action'.

 

That leaves us back at square one. The vEdAs are there. Let us

imbibe from them what we can understand and what is useful to us as

vEdantins and give the rest the benefit of doubt until such time the

logic of it all is known to us. Anyway, thankfully, ashwamEdhAs are

not the order of day with royalties having vanished and their

democratic substitutes busy with naramEdhAs in the form of communal

riots. And, if anybody wants to eat beef just for the sake of

begetting progeny, that also is available aplenty in the market

without the seeker having to kill the innocent animal. Then why do

we worry much about the ahimsa in the vEdas when, as Chittaranjanji

rightly noted, the whole world is busy devouring all that fly, swim

and walk on two, four or more to satisfy their insatiable gastric

fire?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

____

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> I would like this to be a new thread branching off from

> `What Vedas are not'  so that we all may come back to

> advaita instead of doing `academic research on animal

> sacrifices in the vedas'..............

[Guest guest]

>

> 4. If a particular animal is to be sacrificed for a particular

goal,

> then some logical explanation should exist why another animal or an

> inanimate substitute cannot be used. We see that our ancient

> pUjavidhIs have changed with changing times. For a vEdantin

anything

> that is sacrificed is brahmArpaNam. Why should it be a horse when

a

> non-living thing can be offered with equal advaitic equanimity in

> full love for the Ultimate? No vEdantin deriving inspiration from

the

> Bhagwad GItA can be expected to embark on a ritual just in the name

> of `actionless action' when the logic of it all is simply beyond

> him.

 

Thanks MAdathilji

I love this presentation that echo my thoughts on animal sacrifices.

 

To the best of my knowledge, none of the recent apostles/ saints -

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi, Ramana

Maharshi, Swami rama, Shirdi Saibaba etc. have stated that for

certain reasons Animal sacrifices can be done.

 

It may also be illuminating to have some examples of

' ancient

' pUjavidhIs have changed with changing times. '

Many Thousand Pranams to all advaitins

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

>

> It may also be illuminating to have some examples of

> ' ancient

> ' pUjavidhIs have changed with changing times. '

 

Namaste,

 

The foremost example may be Shankara's consolidating over 80

sects into 6 (Shanmata), which has remained the standard ever since.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste all.

>

> That leaves us back at square one. The vEdAs are there. Let us

> imbibe from them what we can understand and what is useful to us as

> vEdantins and give the rest the benefit of doubt until such time

the

> logic of it all is known to us. Anyway, thankfully, ashwamEdhAs

are

> not the order of day with royalties having vanished and their

> democratic substitutes busy with naramEdhAs in the form of communal

> riots. And, if anybody wants to eat beef just for the sake of

> begetting progeny, that also is available aplenty in the market

> without the seeker having to kill the innocent animal. Then why do

> we worry much about the ahimsa in the vEdas when, as Chittaranjanji

> rightly noted, the whole world is busy devouring all that fly, swim

> and walk on two, four or more to satisfy their insatiable gastric

> fire?

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaste Nairji and others who have written on this.

 

This seems to present a profound dilemma - on the one hand, we hold

that the vedas are the ultimate, unquestionable pramaana; on the

other, we have genuine discomfort with certain portions like

ashwamedha. IMHO, none of us is really comfortable with the idea of

killing animals for the rituals. I have struggled with similar

questions in Mahabharata where the Pandavas, under the advice of

Krishna, do adopt unfair means to defeat the Kauravas. Ultimately, I

decided that not having the vision of Krishna, I am in no position to

question His decisions and actions. I can also not act in a similar

manner on my own for the same reason. Similarly, on the issue of

ritual sacrifices, I feel that the great sages of the past would not

have performed these unless they had understood their purpose. In my

limited capacity, I certainly cannot question these rituals.

 

On the question of yajnas, I would like to share the following

anecdote from Sri Appayya Dikshita's life.

 

Quote

Appayya, known also as Dikshitendra, performed Soma Yajna to

propitiate Chandramauleswara. He performed the Vajapeya sacrifice in

Kancheepuram. Seventeen horses were sacrificed. Some scholars alleged

that the sacrifice was an act of violence. But Appayya showed to the

audience that the chanting of Vedic hymns and Mantras purified

everything and gave salvation to the horses. The spectators saw the

horses leaving the gross bodies and ascending to heaven amidst

praises by Siddhas, Charanas and Gandharvas. From the sky they

praised Appayya and said, "On account of thy grace, we have been

fortunate to enter heaven". The doubts of the scholars were removed

now.

End Quote

>From the biography written by Swami Sivananda.

See http://www.dlshq.org/saints/appayya.htm#soma

 

Hari Om!

With regards,

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

I am not surprised that this topic, "What Vedas are not?" is

prolonging without meaningful resolutions. It seems that our

creative mind propelled by ignorance can not stop this discussion.

Profvkji has tried his level best to divert the attention of the

discussants but couldn't succeed! I want the discussants to take a

deep breath and read the verses 39 and 40 from Gita chapter 4. The

reason that I bring these two verses at this juncture is to indicate

that these two verses are more relevant for "Self-realization"

than "splitting the hair" discussion on the contents of Vedas.

 

In this context, first we need to recognize that none of us are fit

to analyze " the religious practices that were spelled out thousands

of years ago." Also Vedas contain "religious" and "philosophical"

aspects of Vedic Culture. The religious aspects of all religion are

always subject to change by time, persons and location. Within

India, there are wide variations of religious practices even though

they all claim to adapt such practices from the same Vedas. The

Hindu Scriptures including the works of Manu recognize and recommend

changes subject to circumstances. Dharma (ethical law) is Not

Static - the concept and content of dharma change in accordance with

the changing circumstances (Manu Smriti, 1.81-86).

 

We the human beings are ever evolving and human eating practices have

been well documented using both historical and scientific facts.

Changes have taken place all over including the language that we

speak and the grammar of those languages. For example, the Tamil

Grammarian, Tolkappier says – "Palayan kazithalum and pudiyan

pukuthalam vazuvilai – There is nothing wrong to remove some old

usages and rules with new usage and rules." I also recommend this

interesting article from The Hindu:

http://www.thehindu.com/2002/11/11/stories/2002111102370900.htm

Also Available at: http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m14957.html

 

Now let us focus our attention to the Gita verses 39 and 40 of

chapter 4 and understand what Lord Krishna has to say about

shraddhavaans (believers) and ashraddhavaans (doubters):

 

shraddhaavaa.Nl{}labhate GYaanaM tatparaH sa.nyatendriyaH .

GYaanaM labdhvaa paraaM shaantimachireNaadhigach{}chhati

 

He, who has fully controlled his senses, is exclusively devoted to

spiritual practice and is full of faith, attains Knowledge; having

gained Knowledge, he immediately attains supreme peace (in the form

of God-Realization).

 

The word 'Sraddha' means faith in the excellence and infallibility of

the Vedas and other scriptures, the commandments of God and the

teachings of holy men, with as much certainty as in the existence of

this perceptible objective world, and accompanied by the feeling of

highest reverence for them as well, as belief in the existence of the

other world. He who is possessed of such unflinching faith is

called 'Sraddhavan'. The statement that the man of faith attains

illumination, therefore, means that such a man alone can approach the

wise seers with humility and submission and obtaining instruction

from them through prostration, service and meek questions, can attain

the light of Truth by following the path of Knowledge or Action. He

who lacks faith can never be regarded as qualified to receive this

light. Therefore, faith is the principal factor contributing to the

attainment of Knowledge. The greater the degree of faith one brings

to bear on his practice for Knowledge, the sooner is it able to bring

about the revelation of Truth. It is faith that gives the impetus to

one's Sadhana or spiritual practice; and earnestness is the test of

faith. Indolence, sloth and other evils make their appearance during

the Sadhana due to lack of faith that is why one cannot push one's

Sadhana with earnestness. Practicants unacquainted with the meaning

of faith overestimate their inadequate faith; and when it fails to

bring the desired result, they take no notice of their lack of

earnestness, and jump to the conclusion that God-Realization does not

come even to one possessed of faith.

 

 

Showing thus that the man of faith attains Knowledge and Knowledge

leads to the attainment of supreme peace, the Lord now censures him

who lacks faith, is devoid of discrimination and is at the same time

possessed by doubt.

 

Chapter 4, Verse 40

aGYashchaashraddadhaanashcha sa.nshayaatmaa vinashyati .

naayaM loko.asti na paro na sukhaM sa.nshayaatmanaH ..

 

He, who lacks discrimination, is devoid of faith, and is possessed by

doubt, is lost to the spiritual path. For the doubting soul in

particular, there is neither this world nor the world beyond, nor

even happiness.

 

 

The word `Ajnah' in this verse stands for the man who is devoid of

intelligence and reason, i.e., who lacks the capacity to

differentiate between truth and untruth, the self and non-self, so

that he is unable to decide what is duty and what is not duty. The

word `Asraddadhanah' stands for the man who lacks faith in God and

the other world, in the scriptures, which deal with the means of God-

Realization and contain references to the other world, in the wise

men and their teachings as well as in the fruits of practices taught

by them. And `Samsayatma' stands for the doubting soul, who cannot

arrive at any conclusion about the existence of God and the other

world, or about any other thing whatsoever; and entertains doubt

about everything. Being devoid of intelligence such a man cannot

correctly grasp the import of the Vedas and other scriptures, or the

teachings of wise men and the practices taught by them; and because

of lack of faith in whatever he understands, he entertains doubt at

every step and cannot therefore decide what he should do and what he

should not do. It is, therefore, but natural that he fritters away

his human life in vain and remains totally deprived of the supreme

good it would have surely brought to him and he made the best use of

it. This is what the statement means that such a man "is lost to the

spiritual path".

 

The verse says that "for the doubting soul there is neither this

world nor the world beyond, nor even happiness." There by it shows

that a spiritual fall is not the only loss he suffers. So long as a

man is possessed by doubt, and is not able to remove it, he cannot

expect to prosper in the world by obtaining wealth, glory and fame

etc, nor can he enjoy the blessings of heaven after death nor even

the joys of this world; for it is not possible for him to attain

success in any sphere so long as he continues to entertain doubt in

his mind, and fails to arrive at a definite conclusion. Therefore,

doubt should be removed at any cost. Thus declaring doubt coupled

with lack of discriminator: and lack of faith as an obstacle to the

attainment of Knowledge, the Lord, now praises the Karmayogi, free of

doubt and self possessed, with a view to encouraging Arjuna to take

to the practice of Karmayoga, overcoming his doubt by discrimination.

 

Finally according to my limited understanding of Vedas, I believe

that we should divert our focus on the `philosophical aspects of

Vedas, especially the Upanishads.' Interestingly the Upanishads focus

more on the "Absolute Truth" and the Karma kandas (ritual aspects)

describe more on the transient aspects of our life.

 

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...> wrote:

>

> Namaste Nairji and others who have written on this.

>

> This seems to present a profound dilemma - on the one hand, we hold

> that the vedas are the ultimate, unquestionable pramaana; on the

> other, we have genuine discomfort with certain portions like

ashwamedha.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran>

wrote:

> I believe

> that we should divert our focus on the `philosophical aspects of

> Vedas, especially the Upanishads.' Interestingly the Upanishads

focus

> more on the "Absolute Truth" and the Karma kandas (ritual aspects)

> describe more on the transient aspects of our life.

 

Namaste,

 

Nowhere is this stated as uncompromisingly as in Gita 2:42-46 -

 

yaamimaaM pushhpitaaM vaachaM pravadantyavipashchitaH .

vedavaadarataaH paartha naanyadastiiti vaadinaH .. 2\-42..

 

kaamaatmaanaH svargaparaa janmakarmaphalapradaam.h .

kriyaavisheshhabahulaaM bhogaishvaryagatiM prati .. 2\-43..

 

bhogaishvaryaprasaktaanaa.n tayaapahR^itachetasaam.h .

vyavasaayaatmikaa buddhiH samaadhau na vidhiiyate .. 2\-44..

 

traiguNyavishhayaa vedaa nistraiguNyo bhavaarjuna .

nirdvandvo nityasattvastho niryogakShema aatmavaan.h .. 2\-45..

 

yaavaanartha udapaane sarvataH samplutodake .

taavaansarveshhu vedeshhu braahmaNasya vijaanataH .. 2\-46..

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Neelakantanji,

 

Hope you clarified everybody's doubts by quoting this incident.

Really there must be some meaning to the Vedic animal sacrifice. But

unfortunately we are seeing with our eyes in Kaliyuga it seems very

brutal. Who knows its inner meaning? Great people only can define

them. As Shri Ayyappa Dikhitar performed and showed the sanctity of

this act.

 

Mostly, if Western people say Vedic Animal Sacrifice is a brutal act

and they have done it for satisfying their taste buds, why should we

believe. There are certain Dharmas in our Sanatana Dharma even we

can not answer those questions. Because it is such a Dharma which is

being followed from ages.

 

My humble pranams to all members here,

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ram Chandranji,

 

An excellent post Sir. I agree with everything you've said, and would

only like to make a small submission with respect to the following

statements in your message so as to place it in the context of the

Universal Dharma:

 

1. "The religious aspects of all religion are always subject to

change by time, persons and location."

 

2. "There is nothing wrong to remove some old usages and rules

with new usage and rules."

 

 

My submission is as follows:

 

The change of usage and rule is contingent within the same Dharma,

they are not actual change of the Dharma itself. To elaborate

further, Dharma, the Law, is eternal, it is not subject to change.

The eternal Law defines Dharma over the entire contour of reality

including the different situations that may arise at different times

and different locations. Therefore the prescriptions of dharma that

seem to change over time are only the variations of the same

overarching eternal Dharma as it becomes applicable to the specific

situations that arise in the flow of creation.

 

The parallel I can think of here is that of a mathematical equation

defining a law of nature. The equation, or the law, is one and it is

invariant with respect to space and time, but the local value of its

variables change with respect to the specific space-time coordinates.

 

Again, there are situations that are tricky when it comes to

interpreting the Dharma. For example, the Manu Smriti allows one to

speak a lie under some extreme conditions, but this does not mean

that speaking a lie is dharma; it only means that speaking a lie is a

concession made under the difficult situation whereby, within the

ambit of the laws of dharma, the degree of wrongness is reduced due

to the situational factor, but it would not still dilute the supreme

virtue of being a Harishchandra even in the difficult situation.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran>

wrote:

> Namaste:

>

> I am not surprised that this topic, "What Vedas are not?" is

> prolonging without meaningful resolutions. It seems that our

> creative mind propelled by ignorance can not stop this discussion.

> Profvkji has tried his level best to divert the attention of the

> discussants but couldn't succeed! I want the discussants to take a

> deep breath and read the verses 39 and 40 from Gita chapter 4. The

> reason that I bring these two verses at this juncture is to

indicate

> that these two verses are more relevant for "Self-realization"

> than "splitting the hair" discussion on the contents of Vedas.

>

> In this context, first we need to recognize that none of us are fit

> to analyze " the religious practices that were spelled out

thousands

> of years ago." Also Vedas contain "religious" and "philosophical"

> aspects of Vedic Culture. The religious aspects of all religion

are

> always subject to change by time, persons and location. Within

> India, there are wide variations of religious practices even though

> they all claim to adapt such practices from the same Vedas. The

> Hindu Scriptures including the works of Manu recognize and

recommend

> changes subject to circumstances. Dharma (ethical law) is Not

> Static - the concept and content of dharma change in accordance

with

> the changing circumstances (Manu Smriti, 1.81-86).

>

> We the human beings are ever evolving and human eating practices

have

> been well documented using both historical and scientific facts.

> Changes have taken place all over including the language that we

> speak and the grammar of those languages. For example, the Tamil

> Grammarian, Tolkappier says – "Palayan kazithalum and pudiyan

> pukuthalam vazuvilai – There is nothing wrong to remove some old

> usages and rules with new usage and rules." I also recommend this

> interesting article from The Hindu:

> http://www.thehindu.com/2002/11/11/stories/2002111102370900.htm

> Also Available at:

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m14957.html

>

> Now let us focus our attention to the Gita verses 39 and 40 of

> chapter 4 and understand what Lord Krishna has to say about

> shraddhavaans (believers) and ashraddhavaans (doubters):

>

> shraddhaavaa.Nl{}labhate GYaanaM tatparaH sa.nyatendriyaH .

> GYaanaM labdhvaa paraaM shaantimachireNaadhigach{}chhati

>

> He, who has fully controlled his senses, is exclusively devoted to

> spiritual practice and is full of faith, attains Knowledge; having

> gained Knowledge, he immediately attains supreme peace (in the form

> of God-Realization).

>

> The word 'Sraddha' means faith in the excellence and infallibility

of

> the Vedas and other scriptures, the commandments of God and the

> teachings of holy men, with as much certainty as in the existence

of

> this perceptible objective world, and accompanied by the feeling of

> highest reverence for them as well, as belief in the existence of

the

> other world. He who is possessed of such unflinching faith is

> called 'Sraddhavan'. The statement that the man of faith attains

> illumination, therefore, means that such a man alone can approach

the

> wise seers with humility and submission and obtaining instruction

> from them through prostration, service and meek questions, can

attain

> the light of Truth by following the path of Knowledge or Action. He

> who lacks faith can never be regarded as qualified to receive this

> light. Therefore, faith is the principal factor contributing to the

> attainment of Knowledge. The greater the degree of faith one brings

> to bear on his practice for Knowledge, the sooner is it able to

bring

> about the revelation of Truth. It is faith that gives the impetus

to

> one's Sadhana or spiritual practice; and earnestness is the test of

> faith. Indolence, sloth and other evils make their appearance

during

> the Sadhana due to lack of faith that is why one cannot push one's

> Sadhana with earnestness. Practicants unacquainted with the meaning

> of faith overestimate their inadequate faith; and when it fails to

> bring the desired result, they take no notice of their lack of

> earnestness, and jump to the conclusion that God-Realization does

not

> come even to one possessed of faith.

>

>

> Showing thus that the man of faith attains Knowledge and Knowledge

> leads to the attainment of supreme peace, the Lord now censures him

> who lacks faith, is devoid of discrimination and is at the same

time

> possessed by doubt.

>

> Chapter 4, Verse 40

> aGYashchaashraddadhaanashcha sa.nshayaatmaa vinashyati .

> naayaM loko.asti na paro na sukhaM sa.nshayaatmanaH ..

>

> He, who lacks discrimination, is devoid of faith, and is possessed

by

> doubt, is lost to the spiritual path. For the doubting soul in

> particular, there is neither this world nor the world beyond, nor

> even happiness.

>

>

> The word `Ajnah' in this verse stands for the man who is devoid of

> intelligence and reason, i.e., who lacks the capacity to

> differentiate between truth and untruth, the self and non-self, so

> that he is unable to decide what is duty and what is not duty. The

> word `Asraddadhanah' stands for the man who lacks faith in God and

> the other world, in the scriptures, which deal with the means of

God-

> Realization and contain references to the other world, in the wise

> men and their teachings as well as in the fruits of practices

taught

> by them. And `Samsayatma' stands for the doubting soul, who cannot

> arrive at any conclusion about the existence of God and the other

> world, or about any other thing whatsoever; and entertains doubt

> about everything. Being devoid of intelligence such a man cannot

> correctly grasp the import of the Vedas and other scriptures, or

the

> teachings of wise men and the practices taught by them; and because

> of lack of faith in whatever he understands, he entertains doubt at

> every step and cannot therefore decide what he should do and what

he

> should not do. It is, therefore, but natural that he fritters away

> his human life in vain and remains totally deprived of the supreme

> good it would have surely brought to him and he made the best use

of

> it. This is what the statement means that such a man "is lost to

the

> spiritual path".

>

> The verse says that "for the doubting soul there is neither this

> world nor the world beyond, nor even happiness." There by it shows

> that a spiritual fall is not the only loss he suffers. So long as a

> man is possessed by doubt, and is not able to remove it, he cannot

> expect to prosper in the world by obtaining wealth, glory and fame

> etc, nor can he enjoy the blessings of heaven after death nor even

> the joys of this world; for it is not possible for him to attain

> success in any sphere so long as he continues to entertain doubt in

> his mind, and fails to arrive at a definite conclusion. Therefore,

> doubt should be removed at any cost. Thus declaring doubt coupled

> with lack of discriminator: and lack of faith as an obstacle to the

> attainment of Knowledge, the Lord, now praises the Karmayogi, free

of

> doubt and self possessed, with a view to encouraging Arjuna to take

> to the practice of Karmayoga, overcoming his doubt by

discrimination.

>

> Finally according to my limited understanding of Vedas, I believe

> that we should divert our focus on the `philosophical aspects of

> Vedas, especially the Upanishads.' Interestingly the Upanishads

focus

> more on the "Absolute Truth" and the Karma kandas (ritual aspects)

> describe more on the transient aspects of our life.

>

> Warmest regards,

> Ram Chandran

>

> advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...>

wrote:

> >

> > Namaste Nairji and others who have written on this.

> >

> > This seems to present a profound dilemma - on the one hand, we

hold

> > that the vedas are the ultimate, unquestionable pramaana; on the

> > other, we have genuine discomfort with certain portions like

> ashwamedha.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

Very well said. What you have mentioned is basically Saamaanya Dharma

(universal) & Vishesha Dharma (particular/situational).

 

best regards,

K Kathirasan

>

> Chittaranjan Naik [sMTP:chittaranjan_naik]

> Monday, February 23, 2004 3:21 PM

> advaitin

> Re: Attitude of Actionlessness --(Was "What Vedas

> are not")

>

> Namaste Ram Chandranji,

>

> An excellent post Sir. I agree with everything you've said, and would

> only like to make a small submission with respect to the following

> statements in your message so as to place it in the context of the

> Universal Dharma:

>

> 1. "The religious aspects of all religion are always subject to

> change by time, persons and location."

>

> 2. "There is nothing wrong to remove some old usages and rules

> with new usage and rules."

>

>

> My submission is as follows:

>

> The change of usage and rule is contingent within the same Dharma,

> they are not actual change of the Dharma itself. To elaborate

> further, Dharma, the Law, is eternal, it is not subject to change.

> The eternal Law defines Dharma over the entire contour of reality

> including the different situations that may arise at different times

> and different locations. Therefore the prescriptions of dharma that

> seem to change over time are only the variations of the same

> overarching eternal Dharma as it becomes applicable to the specific

> situations that arise in the flow of creation.

>

> The parallel I can think of here is that of a mathematical equation

> defining a law of nature. The equation, or the law, is one and it is

> invariant with respect to space and time, but the local value of its

> variables change with respect to the specific space-time coordinates.

>

> Again, there are situations that are tricky when it comes to

> interpreting the Dharma. For example, the Manu Smriti allows one to

> speak a lie under some extreme conditions, but this does not mean

> that speaking a lie is dharma; it only means that speaking a lie is a

> concession made under the difficult situation whereby, within the

> ambit of the laws of dharma, the degree of wrongness is reduced due

> to the situational factor, but it would not still dilute the supreme

> virtue of being a Harishchandra even in the difficult situation.

>

> With regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

>

>

>

> advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran>

> wrote:

> > Namaste:

> >

> > I am not surprised that this topic, "What Vedas are not?" is

> > prolonging without meaningful resolutions. It seems that our

> > creative mind propelled by ignorance can not stop this discussion.

> > Profvkji has tried his level best to divert the attention of the

> > discussants but couldn't succeed! I want the discussants to take a

> > deep breath and read the verses 39 and 40 from Gita chapter 4. The

> > reason that I bring these two verses at this juncture is to

> indicate

> > that these two verses are more relevant for "Self-realization"

> > than "splitting the hair" discussion on the contents of Vedas.

> >

> > In this context, first we need to recognize that none of us are fit

> > to analyze " the religious practices that were spelled out

> thousands

> > of years ago." Also Vedas contain "religious" and "philosophical"

> > aspects of Vedic Culture. The religious aspects of all religion

> are

> > always subject to change by time, persons and location. Within

> > India, there are wide variations of religious practices even though

> > they all claim to adapt such practices from the same Vedas. The

> > Hindu Scriptures including the works of Manu recognize and

> recommend

> > changes subject to circumstances. Dharma (ethical law) is Not

> > Static - the concept and content of dharma change in accordance

> with

> > the changing circumstances (Manu Smriti, 1.81-86).

> >

> > We the human beings are ever evolving and human eating practices

> have

> > been well documented using both historical and scientific facts.

> > Changes have taken place all over including the language that we

> > speak and the grammar of those languages. For example, the Tamil

> > Grammarian, Tolkappier says - "Palayan kazithalum and pudiyan

> > pukuthalam vazuvilai - There is nothing wrong to remove some old

> > usages and rules with new usage and rules." I also recommend this

> > interesting article from The Hindu:

> > http://www.thehindu.com/2002/11/11/stories/2002111102370900.htm

> > Also Available at:

> http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m14957.html

> >

> > Now let us focus our attention to the Gita verses 39 and 40 of

> > chapter 4 and understand what Lord Krishna has to say about

> > shraddhavaans (believers) and ashraddhavaans (doubters):

> >

> > shraddhaavaa.Nl{}labhate GYaanaM tatparaH sa.nyatendriyaH .

> > GYaanaM labdhvaa paraaM shaantimachireNaadhigach{}chhati

> >

> > He, who has fully controlled his senses, is exclusively devoted to

> > spiritual practice and is full of faith, attains Knowledge; having

> > gained Knowledge, he immediately attains supreme peace (in the form

> > of God-Realization).

> >

> > The word 'Sraddha' means faith in the excellence and infallibility

> of

> > the Vedas and other scriptures, the commandments of God and the

> > teachings of holy men, with as much certainty as in the existence

> of

> > this perceptible objective world, and accompanied by the feeling of

> > highest reverence for them as well, as belief in the existence of

> the

> > other world. He who is possessed of such unflinching faith is

> > called 'Sraddhavan'. The statement that the man of faith attains

> > illumination, therefore, means that such a man alone can approach

> the

> > wise seers with humility and submission and obtaining instruction

> > from them through prostration, service and meek questions, can

> attain

> > the light of Truth by following the path of Knowledge or Action. He

> > who lacks faith can never be regarded as qualified to receive this

> > light. Therefore, faith is the principal factor contributing to the

> > attainment of Knowledge. The greater the degree of faith one brings

> > to bear on his practice for Knowledge, the sooner is it able to

> bring

> > about the revelation of Truth. It is faith that gives the impetus

> to

> > one's Sadhana or spiritual practice; and earnestness is the test of

> > faith. Indolence, sloth and other evils make their appearance

> during

> > the Sadhana due to lack of faith that is why one cannot push one's

> > Sadhana with earnestness. Practicants unacquainted with the meaning

> > of faith overestimate their inadequate faith; and when it fails to

> > bring the desired result, they take no notice of their lack of

> > earnestness, and jump to the conclusion that God-Realization does

> not

> > come even to one possessed of faith.

> >

> >

> > Showing thus that the man of faith attains Knowledge and Knowledge

> > leads to the attainment of supreme peace, the Lord now censures him

> > who lacks faith, is devoid of discrimination and is at the same

> time

> > possessed by doubt.

> >

> > Chapter 4, Verse 40

> > aGYashchaashraddadhaanashcha sa.nshayaatmaa vinashyati .

> > naayaM loko.asti na paro na sukhaM sa.nshayaatmanaH ..

> >

> > He, who lacks discrimination, is devoid of faith, and is possessed

> by

> > doubt, is lost to the spiritual path. For the doubting soul in

> > particular, there is neither this world nor the world beyond, nor

> > even happiness.

> >

> >

> > The word `Ajnah' in this verse stands for the man who is devoid of

> > intelligence and reason, i.e., who lacks the capacity to

> > differentiate between truth and untruth, the self and non-self, so

> > that he is unable to decide what is duty and what is not duty. The

> > word `Asraddadhanah' stands for the man who lacks faith in God and

> > the other world, in the scriptures, which deal with the means of

> God-

> > Realization and contain references to the other world, in the wise

> > men and their teachings as well as in the fruits of practices

> taught

> > by them. And `Samsayatma' stands for the doubting soul, who cannot

> > arrive at any conclusion about the existence of God and the other

> > world, or about any other thing whatsoever; and entertains doubt

> > about everything. Being devoid of intelligence such a man cannot

> > correctly grasp the import of the Vedas and other scriptures, or

> the

> > teachings of wise men and the practices taught by them; and because

> > of lack of faith in whatever he understands, he entertains doubt at

> > every step and cannot therefore decide what he should do and what

> he

> > should not do. It is, therefore, but natural that he fritters away

> > his human life in vain and remains totally deprived of the supreme

> > good it would have surely brought to him and he made the best use

> of

> > it. This is what the statement means that such a man "is lost to

> the

> > spiritual path".

> >

> > The verse says that "for the doubting soul there is neither this

> > world nor the world beyond, nor even happiness." There by it shows

> > that a spiritual fall is not the only loss he suffers. So long as a

> > man is possessed by doubt, and is not able to remove it, he cannot

> > expect to prosper in the world by obtaining wealth, glory and fame

> > etc, nor can he enjoy the blessings of heaven after death nor even

> > the joys of this world; for it is not possible for him to attain

> > success in any sphere so long as he continues to entertain doubt in

> > his mind, and fails to arrive at a definite conclusion. Therefore,

> > doubt should be removed at any cost. Thus declaring doubt coupled

> > with lack of discriminator: and lack of faith as an obstacle to the

> > attainment of Knowledge, the Lord, now praises the Karmayogi, free

> of

> > doubt and self possessed, with a view to encouraging Arjuna to take

> > to the practice of Karmayoga, overcoming his doubt by

> discrimination.

> >

> > Finally according to my limited understanding of Vedas, I believe

> > that we should divert our focus on the `philosophical aspects of

> > Vedas, especially the Upanishads.' Interestingly the Upanishads

> focus

> > more on the "Absolute Truth" and the Karma kandas (ritual aspects)

> > describe more on the transient aspects of our life.

> >

> > Warmest regards,

> > Ram Chandran

> >

> > advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Namaste Nairji and others who have written on this.

> > >

> > > This seems to present a profound dilemma - on the one hand, we

> hold

> > > that the vedas are the ultimate, unquestionable pramaana; on the

> > > other, we have genuine discomfort with certain portions like

> > ashwamedha.

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

> http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chiiaranjanji:

 

Thanks for your kind remarks. I do agree that in many situations we

may be forced to choose between several competing 'Dharmas.' For

example, Sri Rama the king of Ayodhya was faced with two choices -

(1) Dharma as a King and (2) Dharma as the husband of Sita. Since the

Dharma of a king (sitting as the presiding judge) is far superior he

accordingly asked Sita to go to forest! Many other such examples are

can be found in Puranic stories and also in Ramayana and Mahabharata.

 

The simplest rule for us to adopt is to follow the saying:

 

"Do what Rama did and Krishna said."

 

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Again, there are situations that are tricky when it comes to

> interpreting the Dharma.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sridharji,

 

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

> To the best of my knowledge, none of the recent apostles/ saints -

> Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi, Ramana

> Maharshi, Swami rama, Shirdi Saibaba etc. have stated that for

> certain reasons Animal sacrifices can be done.

>

> Many Thousand Pranams to all advaitins

> Sridhar

 

 

Apart from the incident quoted by Neelakantanji about the horse

sacrifice offered by Appaya Dikshitar, it might be mentioned that

animals were sacrificed at the Kali Temple during the time that Sri

Ramakrishna lived at Dakshineswar. It is recorded that the priest who

performed the sacrifice at the temple once felt an aversion to the

killing and had to suffer an adverse consequence as a result. Sri

Ramakrishna explained that when a sacrifice is offered to the Mother,

it has to be done without having any misgivings about the matter.

 

There is another incident which, while it may not directly relate to

Vedic animal sacrifice, may nevertheless go to show that the reasons

for killing in the context of dharma and sadhana are often

unfathomable. A devotee of Sri Ramakrishna had a doubt whether it is

right to kill mosquitoes that troubled him during meditation, and he

approached the Master to seek a clarifation on the issue. When he

walked into the Master's room at Dakshineswar he found that Sri

Ramakrishna was involved in killing bed-bugs. The Master informed the

devotee that these bugs disturbed his meditation, and that is why

they had to be killed. Thus the disciple's doubt in the matter was

cleared. (Of course it is necessary to mention here that the Guru's

advice is only valid within the context of the special Guru-disciple

relationship and is not applicable as a general rule.)

 

Both these incidents are sourced from the book "Life of Ramakrishna"

published by Ramakrishna Ashrama.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Thank you Kathirasanji and Ram Chandranji for the important message

that it is ultimately the Shastras and Puranas that is our guide to

keep us on course.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...>

wrote:

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>

> Very well said. What you have mentioned is basically Saamaanya

> Dharma (universal) & Vishesha Dharma (particular/situational).

>

> best regards,

> K Kathirasan

 

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran>

wrote:

> Namaste Chiiaranjanji:

>

> Thanks for your kind remarks. I do agree that in many situations we

> may be forced to choose between several competing 'Dharmas.' For

> example, Sri Rama the king of Ayodhya was faced with two choices -

> (1) Dharma as a King and (2) Dharma as the husband of Sita. Since

> the Dharma of a king (sitting as the presiding judge) is far

> superior he accordingly asked Sita to go to forest! Many other

> such examples are can be found in Puranic stories and also in

> Ramayana and Mahabharata.

>

> The simplest rule for us to adopt is to follow the saying:

>

> "Do what Rama did and Krishna said."

>

> regards,

> Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...> wrote:

> advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > 2.     The Teaching (of advaita) that everything other than

> > the Self is only a transient appearance, means, in actual

> > practice that (a) we should take all our obligations

> > seriously and (b) we should take all happenings(to us)

> > lightly. This applies to both karma kANDa as well as jnAna

> > kANDa of the Vedas.

> >

>

> Namaste, Professorji.

>

> I am sure I am missing something here. I cannot easily see the

> connection between the first part and the second part of this. I

> would be grateful if you can elaborate a little more.

>

> Regards,

> Neelakantan

 

Namaste Neelakantan-ji

 

(a) We should take all our obligations seriously because, otherwise

it means we are being pulled by our ego and its associates -- which

are the ones that stand between us and our right discharge of

obligations. And that pulling is again the effect of our not having

conviction in the transience (mAyA) of everything.

(b) We should take all the happenings (to us) lightly because, that

is what exactly transience means -- if we believe in the transience

(mAyA) that advaita teaches us.

 

This applies to karma kANDa because, it is nothing but the discharge

of our obligations.

 

This applies to jnAna kANDa because, what else is jnAna kANDa if it

is not the teaching of transience (mAyA) of everything other than

the Self?

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk