Soma & Vaisnavism

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhakta Eduard,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Thank you for your interesting letter. I appreciate the references. The

problem is just that my German is somewhat rusty after not having been used

for quite some years now.

 

 

> > That is true; as far as my understanding goes soma is not manifest

> > during Kaliyuga (although I am not able to back this up from scripture).

> Well, when it is mentioned so often in the Vedas, as it is esp. Rgveda, it

> should still have been available 2k5-3k years ago, which means in

> Kaliyuga.

 

I guess that depends on the dating of the Rg Veda and other Vedic texts.

According to the Bhagavatam these were written down at the beginning of the

current Kaliyuga. That probably implies the availability of soma at that

time. However, the Satapatha Brahmana IV.5.10 speaks of a number of

substitutes which can be used should soma itself not be available. The

Satapatha Brahmana is ascribed to Sage Yajnavalkya whom Bhag. 12.6.62

describe as a disciple of Vaisampayana. Vaisampayana is described in Bhag.

1.4.21 and Bhag. 12.6.52 as the disciple of Srila Vyasadeva who was

entrusted with the Yajur Veda. This would place Yajnavalkya roughly at the

beginning of the Kaliyuga. Since Yajnavalkya gives several substitutes for

soma in the Satapatha Brahmana it would seem that soma was rare at that

time, atleast in some regions. I cannot really see the justification for

why soma should have been available 2500-3000 years ago, that is 2000-2500

years after the start of the Kaliyuga, unless one disagrees with the Rg Veda

being 5000 years old (more precisely, written down 5000 years ago).

 

[This is not really connected with the above, but I think there must be an

error in translation in Bhag. 12.6.61. Here the disciples of Vaisampayana

is described as "authorities in the Atharva Veda." This is strange, seeing

that Vaisampayana was entrusted with the Yajur Veda. The exact word used is

adhvaryavah which is translated as "authorities of the Atharva Veda."

However, as far as I know the adhvaryu was a Vedic priest specialised in the

Yajur Veda.]

 

 

> > However, there was a time when soma was manifest and identified and at

> > that time there were also vaisnavas present.

> This is a rigid assumption. One may assume Vaisnavas throughout the ages,

> but not always were they necessarily dominant. And when the three daily

> pressings of soma are connected with Agni, Indra and the Rbhus resp. for

> at morning, midday and evening, it is doubtful wether Vaisnavas at that

> time would use this substance for the worship of Vishnutattva, though not

> exactly impossible.

 

Well, ghee is used in the Vedic sacrifices for the demigods as well as in

sacrifices for the Supreme Lord (for example in Deity worship), although

maybe not as closely connected with certain deities as soma. I guess

without any further textual evidence all this will be speculation.

 

 

> > The Supreme Lord says in the Bhagavad-gita (9.20) that "Those who study

> > the Vedas and drink the soma juice, seeking the heavenly planets,

> > worship me indirectly." Here soma is strongly linked with karma-kanda

> > and thus not in line with vaisnava philosophy

> Well, be careful. The sanskrit also says "traividya" (those who study the

> Vedas) and "yajnair istva" (worshiping with yajnas) in the same line. Thus

> your statement would imply that studying the Vedas and performing yajnas

> were also karma-kanda. Srikrsna also says that He is Yajnesvara, and all

> the Vedas are revealed by Him. I don't think there's anything per se wrong

> for Vaisnavas in these activities.

 

I agree with you that there as such is nothing wrong for Vaisnavas to engage

in such activities. However, the verse in question refers to people that

study the Vedas and offer sacrifices with a special motive, namely

svar-gatim prarthayante, "seeking heavenly planets." I did not mean to say

that all Vedic study and sacrifices are karma-kanda, but the verse do

describe people attracted to that path. This verse is the only one in the

Gita which directly mentions soma (atleast, according to the index), and

here it is associated with the study and sacrifice of those who desire

heavenly enjoyment, hence karma-kanda. This is why I said that soma is

linked with karma-kanda. Also compare Srila Prabhupada's purport to Bg.

2.43; here the connection between soma and enjoyment of sense gratification

is further pointed out.

 

 

> > > plucking the leaves of that plant [...]

> > Do you have a reference that it is the leaves they pick?

> No, I don't. I heard it from a person who worked on soma a couple of years

> ago, in the light of Avesta. I may ask him end of October, when the next

> term starts, if you're still interested. He might have concrete

> references. But please do remind me then.

 

It is quite interesting that the ancient Iranians had a ritual similar to

the soma ritual (the Iranians used the name haoma for soma). I would be

curious to know more, so I might remind you at that time.

 

 

> > I am asking because the Rg Veda describes that it is the stalk which is

> > pressed during the soma sacrifice: (Rg Veda 9.62.4)

> You cannot say "the Rgveda describes", as there are too many references.

> If there is a reference at 9.62.4 to the stalk alone, it doesn't means

> that's all there is to it. The Vedic Index notes: "It is not possible to

> describe exactly the details of the process of pressing the Soma as

> practiced in the Rigveda. It was certainly purified by being pressed

> through a sieve (Pavitra)."

 

Well, my point was simply that more than just the leaves were needed. I was

surprised about the description of the picking of only the leaves, when I

knew references to the stalk being pressed during sacrifice. The Satapatha

Brahmana III.9.4.1 also describe the stalk being used at the sacrifice, and

Satapatha Brahmana III.9.4.2 speaks of the pressing "slaying" soma. So more

than the leaves are needed for the ritual. Of course, it is possible that

there were several rituals involved with the collection of the plant; one

for the leaves and others for other parts of the plant.

 

 

> > Well, I guess ultimately any Deity does not really need anything.

> Sorry, I meant to say, why should Srikrsna accept it as an offering? Does

> He also accept other hallucinatory substances (apart from betel;-)?

 

I do not know of any substances, other than betel, which can be offered to

the Deity and is of a "hallucinatory" nature. Yet, just because soma is

"hallucinatory" (actually I must admit that I am not clear on the exact

effects achieved by drinking soma) does not necessarily imply that Sri Krsna

would not accept it as an offering to His Deity form. I guess one would

need some scriptural evidence to back this up though.

 

I hope this meets you well.

 

Your servant,

Thakura-seva dasa