On Vedic Ritual, Animal Sacrifice, and Patanjali

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

May I suggest you the following excellent book, which could get pretty

difficult to read at times in initial stages, but is perhaps one of

the only best overviews on Hinduism one can get online?

 

http://kamakoti.org/newlayout/template/hindudharma.html

 

Namaste again.

Ramakrishna

 

 

2009/12/29 mrfluffypuff <mrfluffypuff:

>    Last point of discussion for today, and Ill make it short. I own a book

titled. " The Complete Idiots Guide to Hinduism " By Linda Johnsen. In it states

that Patanjali (main personage of Yoga School of thought)  had a different way

of understanding the Vedas Infallibility. And I quote:

>

[Guest guest]

2009/12/29 mrfluffypuff <mrfluffypuff

<<First, it is my understanding that most Hindu's do not practice the majority of the rituals outlined in the Veda's today. They practice a few of them, or have Brahmin's perform them on their behalf but do not adhere strictly to the ritualism contained in them.>>

Response: That is true but one has to understand the context as well. Most Vedic rituals are not meant to be regularly performed anyway. There are some that are to be performed regularly (nitya karma), some that are supposed to be performed on specific occasions, typically rites of passage (naimittika karma) and some that are to performed only for fulfilment of specific desires (kamya karma). Only the first two categories are obligatory on the people initiated into Vedic study, and the nitya karma-s in particular are mostly simple practices that can be be performed at home and involve no expenditure.

The complex rituals are typically the kamya karma variety, which are not obligatory and in fact discouraged if one seeks liberation and not worldly (or other-worldly) pleasures. For example, there is a ritual that may be performed if one wants to go to heaven after death. However at the same time it is suggested that seeking heaven is not really meaningful because heaven, like other pleasures, is also transitory. For the person who appreciates this, the ritual to obtain heaven no longer carries any value.

The majority of the Hindu public performs only the naimittika karma for which Brahmins are employed. But these are typically rites of passage, like birth, marriage and death ceremonies.

<<And I cant really blame them, as the prices charged by priests to perform such rituals are generally quite pricey. (Just look up a hindu temple near you and look at the prices charged by the priests to perform different types of Puja's on your behalf to catch my drift.)>>

Reponse: Modern Hindu temple rituals are not strictly the same as the ancient Vedic rituals, but are an evolute of the latter. Again it is not obligatory on a person to sponsor a temple ritual.

<< In fact, wasn't the reason that the Upanishads were composed due to the Brahmin's ritual-based extortioinism of the Kshatriya's and other classes? I have read that the authors of the Upanishads were frustrated Kshatriya's>>

Response: I was really amused to see the above. This is absolutely silly " wisdom " perpetuated by people who have no understanding of the tradition. As I mentioned, the complex rituals were primarily kamya karma-s that were performed for fulfilment of specific desires. The most complex ones, such as the Rajasuya and the Ashvamedha, were rituals specifically associated with the kshatriya-s (the traditional Indian royalty), and these rituals were symbols of royal power and grandeur. It was a matter of pride and honour for a king and his kingdom to be able to perform such rituals. Typically, it was only the most powerful kings of their time who performed these rituals, which were associated with claims of suzerainty over neighbouring kingdoms.

The sages of the Upanishads (as also the rest of the Vedic corpus) are primarily Brahmana-s and to a lesser extent kshatriya-s. Major Upanishadic sages such as Yajnavalkya, Shaunaka, Uddalaka Aruni, etc were Brahmana-s. Others such as Ajatashatru were kshatriya-s.    

<< When they sat down to meditate, they found that the wisdom contained in the vedic rituals, were not meant for outer performance, but rather they were allegory for the inner work one does to achieve enlightenment. The sacrifices were symbolic of inner processes. This makes sense to me, because I cannot imagine enlightened individuals such as the rishi's who " heard " the veda's and then wrote them down being focused on literal physical sacrifices. >>

Response: It is true that one moves from the gross to be subtle, but this is a transcendence and not a rejection. Historically, the Indian philosophies evolved on the basis of an analysis of the relationship between the doer and the deed, which was most clearly manifest in the form of the sacred **physical** ritual.

The above paragraph from you seems to denigrate the physical ritual, which is a misunderstanding. Also, it is very very important to understand that the transcendence of action includes **all action** and not just ritual action. Even meditation is only an action. Even thought is only an action. The idea is to **understand** the mithyAtva of the sense of doership, and this applies to all actions including ritual actions and meditation, and of course all our other actions at home, workplace, etc. In fact much of meditation is a kind of ritual action only.

If the idea of a physical ritual does not appeal to you, then please bear in mind that many other actions you perform, such as walking or typing or reading, are physical actions too. So a denigration of physical ritual is not going to take you closer to enlightenment. 

<<This brings me to my second area of discussion for today. Animal sacrifice in the Veda. It was literally performed by the brahmin's in those time periods, and still is today by a minority in India. However, when one looks at the Veda's as Allegory, one finds the Animal sacrifices to be symbolic of sacrificing the animalistic aspects most of us carry with us.>>

Response: The symbolism of sacrifice has very little to do with sacrificing of " animalistic aspects " . It is part of a different understanding of the cosmos, centred around the interdependence of all life forms and the self-sustaining cycle of birth, death and re-birth. The ancients held considered all actions to be a kind of sacrifice, the universe itself is the product of a cosmic sacrifice, and so forth. The divinity is both the eater and the eaten.

This kind of understanding was prevalent is many ancient cultures, not merely among the ancient Hindu-s. The Ahimsa argument is quite different. It applies, for example, as much to the consumption of meat as it does to sacrifice. An animal sacrifice is no more violent, and therefore no more abhorrent, than killing an animal for meat.

<<Yet, if one looks at the Animal sacrifices as literal, the Veda's seem to contradict both themselves, and the doctrine of Ahimsa that most Hindu's prize.The Veda's themselves tell us not to harm animals. The Upanishads and Gita both relate that Brahman is the self of all living beings>>

If you have understood what I have written above, you will also understand that what you have written above is the wrong approach, so to speak. As far as Brahman is concerned, **everything** is Brahman, whether living or non-living. A rock or a piece of metal is as much Brahman as you or an animal.

<<and to kill those beings is a sin, both against the self, and against the creature being killed.>>Yes, it is a sin of sorts, but life itself thrives on life and there is no way to escape this cycle as long as one identifies oneself as an agent. When one transcends this identification, one transcends both sin and virtue.

Animal sacrifice is no more " sinful " than killing an animal for meat. The ancient sages taught that a vegetarian diet is beneficial, but did not enforce it as mandatory because they recognized that life thrives on life. Likewise for animal sacrifice.

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " mrfluffypuff " <mrfluffypuff wrote:

>

> Hello. My questions today lie with the veda's and what some >percieve to be

contradictions in the traditions contained therein and >the Dharma practiced by

most Hindu's of today.

>Thank you all for reading my ramblings! Now discuss, discuss! Im here >to

learn, not just to talk!

>

 

PraNams Sri Ron,

 

I am not qualified to answer any of your questions with authority. There are

great masters in this group to do so and are answering too. But would like to

add few comments.

 

One thing I realized is that in the path of inquiry you have to make the 'Satwa'

guna in you dominant - otherwise you will not have clarity of anything. There

are many methods given to make that happen (I am sure you read Bhagavat Gita to

know a few) . One such method is to perform rituals. For a non-believer these

rituals look like waste of time - but as they say - the proof is in Pudding -

you have to do them to know that rituals do make your 'satwa' guna dominant. Yet

again, rituals alone won't do that, it is the way you lead your life that bring

meaning to the rituals - you have to strictly follow yama, niyama etc for

rituals to have any effect.

 

Another important point that one needs to be mindful is not to have any

preconceived views (the proper word is Bias) about anything while one takes

Advaitic path towards Truth. I may be wrong, but I see a hint of some

preconceived views in your questions about rituals, Brahmins, Animal Sacrifice,

Vedic Literature etc - If I am right, then be careful - your interfering

intellect may not take you close to the Truth.

 

If I mis-read your postings, I apologize in advance. I usually don't post any

opinions or answers in this august group - only doubts and questions and always

find answers.

 

Regards

 

Sudesh