on the meaning of 'Yajna'...

[Guest guest]

Sri Guru Datta!

 

A new topic for discussion (stop squirming, its just

an email!). I was reading the passage on the

importance of yajna from the bhagavad gita from the

last jaigurudatta email. The following discussion is

related to that passage.

 

It has often occurred to me that the english language

is a poor substitute for the original sanskrit words.

Why do I say that you ask? (or even if you don't

ask...) The word 'sacrifice' is extremely limited, it

does not nearly begin to describe the true word that

is implied in this verse. The inner meaning of this

verse has to do with 'thyaaga' and not just

'sacrifice'. The word 'thyaaga' or 'thyaagam'

represents not only the physical act of giving up

possession, but also the emotional act of 'giving up'

possession. The word thyaaga is indeed the very

essence of spirituality because it represents the

totality of the act of sacrifice. The passage below

read in english would be literally translated to "you

should first give up all your food, then eat the

remaining food left over." -- eating food that is left

over isn't the point of this sentence. The POINT of

this sentence is that when you do an act of sacrifice,

or more appropriately 'self-sacrifice', there is a

certain liberating feeling or emotion that goes with

this act of 'giving'. THIS emotion or 'bhavana' which

is again a better sanskrit word that isn't well

conveyed by the simple word 'emotion' is the REAL

NECTAR that they refer to in this passage. Indeed, the

'bhavana' associated with 'giving up' possessions has

nothing to do with thoughts like "oh i may never get

it back!" -- instead one is filled with an

indescribable joy (or 'ambrosial nectar') that

results from performing service or self-sacrifice.

 

Someone once asked what is the difference between a

poet and a scholar. The secret of this difference lies

in the discussion started here today. The secret is

'bhavana'. The scholar will never understand this

because he/she is too

literal/grammatical/superficial, only the

poet can understand this as only the poet can fully

understand 'bhavana'. Scholarly work is

logical/intellectual, poetic metaphors arise through

divine inspiration or 'bhavana'. Scholarly work is

subject to false interpretation and misunderstanding

-- the work of the poet is never misunderstood, but

layered in such a way that new meanings arise

depending on who's looking. Appreciating the inner

meaning of things through 'bhavana' (again, loosely

translated as 'emotion') allows understanding to

immediately flow forth.

 

People constantly argue (yes they do) about the fact

that "so and so" is not 'advanced' or 'pure' enough to

read the scriptures and blah blah blah. However, they

fail to understand the REASON for this statement made

by the vedas. Here is the REASON: to read any of the

scriptures, one must rely on 'bhavana' and not on

'intellect' to understand the inner meaning -- that is

why it is said that the vedas and other scriptures

should only be taught to certain individuals -- it is

not a form of discrimination, but the ancient sages

knew that only those who possessed 'right

understanding' through 'bhavana' would understand the

inner meaning. However, there is no possible way to

know apriori WHO can or cannot understand (unless you

are one of those ancient sages... but then why would

you be reading this email?) -- it is up to the

individual to have the curiosity and interest -- only

then will 'bhavana' unfold the meanings in the

scriptures.

 

....To those who think "what the heck do the vedas and

upanishads have to do with my life today in 2002?"

think again.

 

I would like to end this email with a riddle. If the

meaning of life is 'death', what then is the 'goal' of

life?

 

Alright, your turn...

 

jai guru datta. jai guru datta. jai guru datta.

pradyumna

 

 

> Bhagavad Gita <bhagavad_gita1

> Chapter 4

> Verse 31

>

> Yajna-shishhtaamrita-bhujo yaanti brahma sanaatanam

> n'aayam loko'styayajnasya kuto'nyah Kuru-sattama //

>

> Those who eat the nectar—the remnants of sacrifice,

> go to the Eternal Brahman. Even this world is not

> for the non-performer of yajna, how then can he get

> the other (higher world?)”

 

 

 

> LESSONS FROM BHAGAVAD GITA – 41

> As taught by Parama Pujya Sri Swamiji

>

> “Those who eat the nectar—the remnants of sacrifice,

> go to the Eternal Brahman. Even this world is not

> for

> the non-performer of yajna, how then can he get the

> other (higher world?)”

>

> The remains of sacrifices are what is left over. It

> is nectar. The sacrificers partake of it. Thus,

> those who eat the ambrosial food, that is, what is

> left over after performing the sacrifices, go to the

> Eternal Brahman. The idea is, these persons become

> Brahman or of the same nature as Brahman.

>

> The idea is that whatever wealth or knowledge a man

> might possess, he should use it for the good of his

> fellow men. He should distribute his wealth and

> knowledge to those who are in need, and he should

> eat

> or enjoy only what is left over after the

> distribution

> is over. That remnant is called nectar because it

> elevates the enjoyer of the remnants to Godhead.

>

> Even this world of human beings is not won by him

> who

> does not perform any of the sacrifices enumerated in

> the earlier verses. How then can he win the other

> world! The idea is that an exalted state, either

> here

> or n the higher world, is dependent on yajna

> (sacrifice) and nothing else.

 

 

 

 

=====

"Man should work with yogic renunciation and doubtlessness. Actions do not bind

him who is poised in the self." -- SGS

 

"oh lord! thou art everything! infinite in power and infinite in prowess, thou

pervadest all" (Bhagavadgita 11.40).

 

"Curiosity did not kill the cat -- it awakened it." - pradyumna

 

 

 

Health - Feel better, live better

http://health.

[Guest guest]

> . If the meaning of life is 'death', what then is the 'goal' of

> life?

 

It is to find out who you are...

 

jgd,

carolin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I´ve found an interesting Sookti Manjari about knowledge and how it is

achieved, who is "entitled" to it etc:

(Bhaktimala May 2002):

 

Atma Dhyana is nothing but analyzing one´s own self physically and

metaphysically. All kinds of knowledge are necessary for this. One should

realize that all kinds of knowledge will lead to that end. ...

 

Whether living in a town or in a forest, whether he is a sinner or a saint,

everyone is always striving for Paramatma. But he does not know its name.

 

Everyone thinks that he or she is striving for Ananda (bliss). Great sages of

yore knew that bliss is the true form of Paramatma. Therefore, they have

devised several ways for attaining Paramatma. The concept of hermitage, the

concept of social living etc., are but different ways. Therefore Atma Vidya

is necessary in both places. (page 10/11)

 

And: (page 10):

 

Whatever branch of knowledge it may be, after a person reaches a particular

level in it, it will broaden the mind as well as the heart of the person.

 

Because of this, the person will become capable of understanding the nature

of his fellow beings, the nature of the world and the society he is living

in, and finally he will understand about himself. ...

 

Just try to talk to our chief of army or to the chief of treasury or to some

other person who is in a prominent post. Each one of them talks about things

such as human behaviour, human nature etc. They talk about humanity... They

talk about the Self. They don´t study Vedanta. Even if they do, it will be

only till the rudimentary level. Still, they are able to absorb the concept

of Vedanta quite easily. How is this possible for them? It is because they

have achieved excellence in their own fields. The level they have reached

will have bestowed them with such ability. ...

 

jaigurudatta

carolin

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sri Guru Datta!

 

However, there is no possible way to know apriori WHO can or cannot understand

(unless you are one of those ancient sages... but then why would you be reading

this email?) -- it is up to the individual to have the curiosity and interest --

only then will 'bhavana' unfold the meanings in the scriptures.

IN A WESTERN SOCIETY INDEED THERE ARE NOT MANY FOR EXAMPLE SUDRAS BUT AN ASPECT

OF THE THUE DEFINITION OF A SUDRA IS ACCORDING TO ME: ONE WHO IS ABSOLUTELY NOT

ABLE TO LEARN EVEN BY FORCE..so for them one can a priori know!

 

-----------------

 

I would like to end this email with a riddle. If the meaning of life is 'death',

what then is the 'goal' of life?

 

IF ONE IDENTIEFIES ONESELF WITH THE SELF WHICH IS ETERNAL, THAN PERHAPS LIFE AS

WE KNOW IT IS A FALSE CONCEPTION...."WE SEE THINGS NOT IN THEIR TRUE FORM BUT IN

THE FORM AS HOW WE THINK!! THEY ARE."

 

---------------------

 

I share your oppinion completely about translating sanskrit....did you know that

the sanskrit as we now it now is different form the older forms of languages in

which the Veds were written...and there are (regional) gramatical differences

(and thus also different interpretations) of sanskrit.Take for example the

grammar of Sage Panini.

 

--------------------

 

NamaH is translated as obeisance but this is only 4% or so of this words true

meaning......

 

 

 

jgd DATTA, Win.

 

 

 

 

 

Health - Feel better, live better