Logic and its spiritual application

April 28, 2009

(An e-mail sent recently to a Group member and friend in Kerala.Some editing done.Pictures added too for visual appeal)

Dear V,

The perception of people is 99% wrong.If the public believes in something, I would up my antennae and question it right away.

Kerala was a purely vegetarian state centuries ago.Infact, it was very strict because of the prevelant Tantreeka practices which needed purity.You must have heard of Sadhya(which comes from Kerala's old practice of "Kerala-Sadacharam", a form of Srividya-Shakteyam)

Kerala is an abundant state with lot of greenery & spices and there never was a need to eat meat, unlike its Portuguese,Jewish,Mughlai invaders who had nothing much(when compared to India/Kerala) in their countries but arid or icelandic weathers and thus gave their customs to the local people of kerala.

This does not mean the tribals in the forests or the like do not eat meat.They too consumed meat like the invaders, however it was not rampant and only on certain days to do heavy manual labour.

However, currently, Kerala is statistically(you can check it out) the state in India which consumes the most of meat,alcohol and ciggarettes.(http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/theglobe/globe200103-04/gl200103-04_p27.html)

Dubai Petro-dollars,Infiltration of communist ideas,acceptance of pornography and liberal media by Keralite public, Syrian and other forms of Catholicism and their emphasis on meat and wine consumption, Moplah and Malabar Muslim cusine and habits,etc changed the scene dramatically.

Now meat,alcohol,cigarettes and ''Kutty'' have become part of Kerala culture except few Ambalavaasi,Namputhiri,Enamputhiri,Thantri communities.Even this is being corrupted these days with the recent shocking revelations of Ayyappa Temple Thantri paying "friendly" visit to Prostitutes and helping them have free darshan apart from accomodating them in his house.

If even Ayyappa, The Mahashaastha Avataram, the perceived patron deity of Kerala is not spared will this temple in Tulurnadu be spared?

Public perception is onething, whereas truth is something else.

If Bhadrakali is offered meat,alcohol,etc then one must know how to control one's shakthi and karma like a true Aghori.It is no easy task.Also such practices are totally private to be done under the guidance of the Guru.One must go out of body consciousness and be Karmaatheetha to indulge in these activities.Vamacharam is not necessarily bad but it must be handled with utmost care.Also, Vaamaacharam must be differentiated from Aabhichaaram(Black Magic).

Kaulachara is be seen as a a via-medium between Vaamam and Sadacharam/Dakshinacharam.

Example:Guruthy(red coloured liquid) can be used instead of Ajaraktha(goat blood).Guruthy sampradaya is not totally non-Rajasic but is better than Ajaraktha Sampradaya which is meant only for people who still are in Tamasic realms with grosser sensibilities.The more you use such devices to please Mother, the grosser you become(unless guided by a great Tantric adept).

Ultimately the goal of every upasaka is Janma-Raahityam(release from birth-death cycle) and do you think by killing innocent lambs,goats, one will attain this lofty goal?

(Seven Goats killed but it seems Goddess Kali wants more! Now, seeing the faces of these people, tell me who wants more "mutton"?)

Moskha is termed difficult.One must be extremly cautious to remain pure and highly elevated sadhakas even fear to speak in a harsh manner to anyone and here is a case where open "murder" is talked about(animals nevertheless).

Now let us analyze the concept logically:

The below statement is a re-wording of your statements said by people to you:

"Everyone have been doing this and thus we do it.We offer only what we eat to Goddess what is wrong in it? It is part of our ancient culture."

Let us analyze these statements threadbare:

1. Everyone have been doing this and thus we do it.

This is called the Logical fallacy of "Ad Populum"

The appeal to Popularity has the following form:

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).

Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim.(In this case----"Nothing is wrong in offering Goddess with meat and alcohol despite the presence of Mahameru").

More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim.A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely lovethe claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "The World is flat", "Humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him or her to accept it."People do not want to be left out".

Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases, they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim.

In the case of an Appeal to Belief,the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice,the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.

2. We offer only what we eat to Goddess what is wrong in it?

Here the following Logical Fallacy occurs: Appeal to Emotion

Hilter appealing to emotions

An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:

Favorable emotions are associated with X.

This is very close to Bhaktha Kannappa offering meat, his spitoon and holding one eye of Lord Shiva from bleeding with his foot.Now this is really emotional, I will deal with it presently below as "Kannappa-fallacy" later.

Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.

This sort of "reasoning" is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for a large portion of modern advertising. Most political speeches are aimed at generating feelings in people so that these feelings will get them to vote or act a certain way. In the case of advertising, the commercials are aimed at evoking emotions that will influence people to buy certain products. In most cases, such speeches and commercials are notoriously free of real evidence.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person were able to inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the claim that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be adequately supported.

In this case, a terrible hatred can be created against a "Brahmanical or an upper caste concept of vegetarianism"(quoting fake or purported atrocities committed by brahmins or upper castes against lower castes and communities) and then creating a love for non-vegetarianism as a total rejection of their principles.A "we" versus "them" war is created internally.This is real kibosh as no one knows where one would be born next birth!

It should be noted that in many cases it is not particularly obvious that the person committing the fallacy is attempting to support a claim. In many cases, the user of the fallacy will appear to be attempting to move people to take an action, such as buying a product or fighting in a war. However, it is possible to determine what sort of claim the person is actually attempting to support. In such cases one needs to ask "what sort of claim is this person attempting to get people to accept and act on?"(Whenever Im accosted by a salesman or saleswoman trying to sell his or her wares, I ask them point-blank, "Do you use it?" and notice the first instant their "face-reaction" and if they appear stunned, then

they are just trying to push the product to me without any conviction.)

Determining this claim (or claims) might take some work. However, in many cases it will be quite evident. For example, in this case a situation is being made for the acceptance of meat and alcohol for Devi as something sanguine; an attempt is being made for the followers to participate in certain acts of violence by the use of emotional speech like "We offer only what we eat", then the claim would be "you should participate in these acts of violence too like me and the do the same as I do too."

As another example, a beer commercial might show happy, scantily clad men and women prancing about a beach, guzzling beer. In this case the claim would be "you should buy this beer." The "evidence" would be the excitement evoked by seeing the beautifulpeople guzzling the beer.

This fallacy is actually an extremely effective persuasive device. As many people have argued, peoples' emotions often carry much more force than their reason. Logical argumentation is often difficult and time consuming and it rarely has the power to spurn people to action.Maybe even this lengthy peroration by me on the subtle logical nuances of logic and communication is eliciting a yawn from you!! !

In all fairness it must be noted that the use of tactics to inspire emotions is an important skill. Without an appeal to peoples' emotions, it is often difficult to get them to take action or to perform at their best. For example, no good coach presents her team with syllogisms before the big game. Instead she inspires them with emotional terms and attempts to "fire" them up. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.Why, infact, I too use this powerful weapon,consciously and unconsciously, to positively and spiritually inspire people through my posts.

However, when it comes to argument and logic, it is not any acceptable form of argumentation. As long as one is able to clearly distinguish between what inspires emotions and what justifies a claim, one is unlikely to fall prey to this fallacy.

As a final point, in many cases it will be difficult to distinguish an Appeal to Emotion from some other fallacies and in many cases multiple fallacies may be committed. For example, many Ad Hominems(Personal attacks) will be very similar to Appeals to Emotion and, in some cases, both fallacies will be committed. As an example, a leader might attempt to invoke hatred of a person to inspire his followers to accept that they should reject his or her claims. The same attack could function as an Appeal to Emotion and a Personal attack. In the first case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers feel very favourable about rejecting his or her claims. In the second case, the attack would be aimed at

making the followers reject the person's claims because of some perceived (or imagined) defect in his or her character.

"Kannappa-Fallacy":

Bhaktha Kannappa no doubt offered meat,spitoon for abhisheka,etc

Points to note here:

1. Total ignorance of relevant customs by the nomadic hunter in those days where the varna system was strictly followed.

2. Intense devotion,sharanagathi Bhava and Prapatthi on his part.

3. Shiva came because of His(Kannappa's) past birth samskaaras,sadhanas,etc(He became Bhaktha Kannappa because of such past birth Vaasanas in the first place) and not merely because he offered meat or spitoon(even if it is a pure act).(One requires lot of sadhana and internal purity to see higher realm beings)

Now ask,these "innocent" temple administrators, whether they are totally ignorant of vegetarian customs?

Ask yourself whether they are doing it out of intense devotion.Whether they would gladly sever their heads for Bhadrakali Bhagavathy?

Ask yourself whether you see their past birth saathwic samskaras and that they are highly pure.

One also gulps down one's own saliva,pizza,etc would this be in good probity to be offered to Goddess?

Would one want to rise in Sathwa by offering Sathwic food as offering or fall into the Rajasic and Tamasic abyss and commit further sins by offering meat,alcohol,etc?

Many I'm sure also partake cigerrettes, then would they offer such stuff to Bhagavathy?

Please ask these strong questions to yourself first.

I would keep mum regarding the "Panchamakara practices being conducted in the temple with half-baked knowledge.I just pray that Tulurvasini protects these erring children.

3. It is part of our ancient culture(or age-old tradition)

If something cannot be appealed by emotion or common practice this third tactic is used which is age-old custom.

What is the definition of "Age-old" or "ancient"?

In other words "How ancient?"

To the time of Jewish and Christian settlers or Islamic pontificates before that?

Or to the time of Parashurama who brought about this region, Pravaala Pradesham(Malayalam was called "Pravaalabhasha" in ancient times)?

Would Parashurama the warrior brahmin approve of such practices to Bhagavathy?

It is one thing to have Saathwic anger(like Parashurama which can even kill and vanquish evil) but it is entirely different to have violence in the name of feeding Mother with Naivedya.

Ultimately, the meat,fish or fowl goes to the belly of those offering it "piously".In their subconscious mind, they relish the taste of the flesh of the fowl or goat being offered and what Biriyani or curry can be made out of it; than any intense devotion of the poorvajanma samaskaric kind of Kannappa which affect them to give such sacrifices.

People are not even steady in the fundamentals and they talk about great saints! (One must do only what the saint teaches or exhorts to do and not what the saint does)

If not these two reasons, it is just a perverted way of expressing their pentup anger(toward society or their wretched states of living or whatever) for the deity.I have unfortunately been a witness to such incidents and I see a kind of temporary relief in the poor people when they sacrifice the animal or bird( Maybe deep inside they feel they are killing their poverty or wretched states by it).They also get a perverse kick out of it and feel euphorically powerful by such violent acts.

However, remember, whatever is offered to God, the same returns back multi-fold.

What is the appeal used here?

Appeal to tradition!

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older,traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

X is old or traditional

Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore,the theory about witches and demons must be true.

This sort of "reasoning" is appealing for a variety of reasons. First, people often prefer to stick with what is older or traditional. This is a fairly common psychological characteristic of people which may stem from the fact that people feel more comfortable about what has been around longer(termed as "comfort zone").

Second, sticking with things that are older or traditional is often easier than testing new things. Hence, people often prefer older and traditional things out of laziness(intellectually or otherwise). Hence, Appeal to Tradition is a somewhat common fallacy.

It should not be automatically assumed that new things must be better than old things, then it becomes appeal to novelty!

and

any more than it should be assumed that old things are better than new things.One must use one's Viveka and Vichara in the process of analysis and take only what is right.

The age of something does not, in general, have any bearing on its quality or correctness (in this context). In the case of tradition, assuming that something is correct just because it is considered a tradition is poor reasoning. For example, if the belief that 1+1 = 56 were a tradition of a group of people it would hardly follow that it is true.

Obviously, age does have a bearing in some contexts. For example, if a person concluded that aged wine would be better than brand new wine(or an aged pickle better than a new pickle), he would not be committing an Appeal to Tradition. This is because, in such cases the age of the thing is relevant to its quality. Thus, the fallacy is committed only when the age is not, in and of itself, relevant to the claim.

One final issue that must be considered is the "test of time". In some cases people might be assuming that because something has lasted as a tradition or has been around a long time that it is true because it has "passed the test of time." If a person assumes that something must be correct or true simply because it has persisted a long time, then he has committed an Appeal to Tradition. After all, as history has shown people can persist in accepting false claims for centuries.

However, if a person argues that the claim or thing in question has successfully stood up to challenges and tests for a long period of time then they would not be committing a fallacy. In such cases the claim would be backed by evidence. As an example, the theory that matter is made of subatomic particles has survived numerous tests and challenges over the years so there is a weight of evidence in its favor.The claim is reasonable to accept because of the weight of this evidence and not because the claim is old. Thus, a claim's surviving legitimate challenges and passing valid tests for a long period of time can justify the acceptance of a claim. But mere age or persistance does

not warrant accepting a claim.

Even in the path of Srividya one must accept age old traditions, no doubt, yet lot of experiential proof is needed to convince a true and earnest sadhaka and if nothing arises, then he or she must accost the Guru and ask Him or Her, what is going wrong.

Example of Appeal to Tradition

Gunthar is the father of Connan. They live on a small island and in their culture women are treated as property to be exchanged at will by men.

Connan: "You know father, when I was going to school in the United States I saw that American women are not treated as property. In fact, I read a book by this person named Mill in which he argued for women's rights." Gunthar: "So, what is your point son?" Connan: "Well, I think that it might be wrong to trade my sisters for cattle. They are human beings and should have a right to be masters of their own fate." Gunthar: "What a strange and new-fangled notion you picked up in America. That country must be even more barbaric then I imagined. Now think about this son. We have been trading women for cattle for as long as our people have lived on this island. It is a tradition that goes back into the mists of time. " Connan: "But I still think there is something wrong with it." Gunthar: "Nonsense my boy. A tradition this old must be

endorsed by the gods and must be right."

Clearly, the practice in the temple is not endorsed by Divine Mother, else so much of confusion and strife would not exist in the first place.What is prominent in this case is a power-struggle by the Dharmadhikaris.The Ashtamangala prasna astrologers can also be "bought" easily either by money or by prevelant ideologies or tradition or by their own thinking in this case.

If you analyse logically using the method shown supra, you will realize the truth.

In your personal case, the withdrawal symptoms from not doing the mantras as adviced by me, are better than doing such mantras.It is like alcohol or cigarrette withdrawal symptoms.

Infact, it is nothing! More of a fabrication of the Mind and Maya.

With devotion,getting proper initiation and the guidance of one's preceptor, one can overcome any hurdle.Be sure of this divine law.

I again repeat AMBA'S TEMPLE WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF, BY HER.

Jaya Sarvamangala!

Blessings,

Shreeram Balijepalli