Some observations about Maha Sivarathri

In all South Indian style temples in USA except for a few Vaishnava temples, Maha Sivarathri is observed, some with all night chanting of Rudram and Chamakam.

It is very interesting and unique to Hindu tradition that we worship Rudra which is a description of ferocious aspect of Isvara.

This forms of worship of Isvara in our tradition is not limited only to Siva worshippers.

In fact in B.Gita, Sri Krishna presented as Bhagavan by poet Vyasa , reveals his so called cosmic form to Arjuna. This cosmic form is one of the most frightening forms of Isvara described in Mahabharatha.

So why do our traditions have a fascination towards worshipping forms of Isvara that is fear-producing?


Most Hindus worship a magician God to 'gain' something. There are many that believe God has to be feared. Some even propagate the notion that they will only fear their God and not of others. There are others who could not care less what the deity is - they just want some thing from the Lord. This post is not directed to such people at all.

There are others - believers of atheism (there is no Isvara), believers of agnosticism (meaning one can never understand the truth) , worshippers of Kama and Krodha. This post is meaningless to them also.

One is free to believe what they want but if anyone wants to dig a bit deeper they will find that their assumptions do not hold well.

In B.Gita - Arjuna and Krishna are presented as eternal friends. They represent metaphorically the relationship of Isvara and Jiva. The fear of the cosmic form only happens because Arjuna at that point thinks he is separate from Isvara. However the overall and consistent message in our scriptures seem to be that fear is not the correct way to deal with our relationship to Isvara.

In certain traditions, during Sandhya Vandanam there is salutations delivered to Lord of Death - Yama and his accountant Chitragupta. This is odd and is meaningless if it is done with fear.

There are several items I wanted to share in this post but it may make this too long.

I *may* post a few more posts in this thread about the following areas when I get time but it may be over few weeks (only if there is interest in such areas).

1. The brilliance of our tradition to worship fear producing forms - Rudra, Narasimha to mention a few; Why?

2. The similarities between forms of Rudra as described in Sri Rudram and the description of cosmic form of Sri krishna revealed to Arjuna

3. The practice of all night chanting of Rudram and chamakam and meditation for prolonged period. Having done this some years ago, I can share some benefits to sincere Sadhakas (when done with right understanding)

4. Why is Isvara in our tradition presented as both provider of grace and provider of fear & problems

In the mean time let me wish you a Happy Sivarathri night!

tks said:

Most Hindus worship a magician God to 'gain' something. There are many that believe God has to be feared. Some even propagate the notion that they will only fear their God and not of others. There are others who could not care less what the deity is - they just want some thing from the Lord.

In B.Gita - Arjuna and Krishna are presented as eternal friends. They represent metaphorically the relationship of Isvara and Jiva.



3. The practice of all night chanting of Rudram and chamakam and meditation for prolonged period. Having done this some years ago, I can share some benefits to sincere Sadhakas (when done with right understanding)

4. Why is Isvara in our tradition presented as both provider of grace and provider of fear & problems

In the mean time let me wish you a Happy Sivarathri night!

Click to expand...

While I look forward to your future posts, I find some points contradictory. I find it rather high sounding when you say that your post is not directed at those *most Hindus* who want *something from the the magician God*.

All Hindus, I believe, may be with a few exceptions probably in your circle, know about the existence/supposed existence of Rudra or Iswara only through the religious texts, predominantly the vedas and later on puranas. If you have any other source of knowledge, please share with the members in this forum.

Also you have said that you have undergone all night chanting of Rudram and chamakam and meditation for prolonged period. If you still care to remember the meanings of **chamakam** it is merely a wishful list of things the sadhaka asks from Sri Rudra. If I am not wrong it lists about 288 such things from Iswara, some for his own good, some for the good of his tribesmen and country. It is rather funny that the Rsis who saw the rks and yajus mantras and who passed it on for a few thousands of years were not so eclectic.

Even the tiniest dvAdaSa nAma and the lengthy saharasnAmAs have a detailed "phala Sruthi" at the end which details the phalan that would accrue to the reciter. The phala sruthis are also composed by the same persons who composed the stotras or slokams or sahasranAmams and there is no charge of interpolation. So when someone declares the majority of the hindus believing in magician god as less than informed, if not downright ignorant it behoves of them to declare their special source of knowledge.

2. There is nothing in the BG itself which says that metaphorically the relatiionship between Krsna and Arjuna are like Isvara and Jeeva. If that be so, then the Isvara should be at fault for abandoning the jiva to roam around in forests for years while Krsna chose the luxury of Dwaaraka. I would take this as an attempted spin unless someone can give cogent, error proof logical reasoning.

3. With my very limited knowledge of scriptures I can make a good case for Krsna and Arjuna to be none other than dahta-vakra and SiSupAlA and quote bits and pieces from this source and that source and knot them together.

I think the principles of Occam razor should apply for unwanted assumptions to press home a point of view.

Continuing from post #3
===============
Let me address some of the objections now and complete the response at another time.

Post #1: I stated -
"In fact in B.Gita, Sri Krishna presented as Bhagavan by poet Vyasa , reveals his so called cosmic form to Arjuna
.
.

In B.Gita - Arjuna and Krishna are presented as eternal friends. They represent metaphorically the relationship of Isvara and Jiva."

Post #2 - Objection raised

There is nothing in the BG itself which says that metaphorically the relatiionship between Krsna and Arjuna are like Isvara. If that be so, then the Isvara should be at fault for abandoning the jiva to roam around in forests for years while Krsna chose the luxury of Dwaaraka. I would take this as an attempted spin unless someone can give cogent, error proof logical reasoning.

Click to expand...

Response:
I already to alluded to this aspect in my original post (see bolded part). In the entire B.Gita, there is no mention of "Sri Krishna uvacha". All teachings are presented as Isvara's (Bhagavan's) teaching. Arjuna is presented as the Jiva who has the confusion and sorrow. In the larger setting of MB, Sri Krishna and Arjuna are portrayed as friends.

In studying B.Gita our learning becomes more meaningful when we can identify ourselves with sorrow of Arjuna. (We are all Jivas and Iswara is never separate from us).

In chapter 2, verse 3 Sri Krishna as Bhagavan calls Arjuna with this

klaibyam ma sma gamah partha
naitat tvayy upapadyate
Only a dear friend (not even a strict teacher) will call someone impotent or eunuch depending on whose translation you want to take.

Many scholars (you can do your own search) have described B.Gita as a conversation metaphorically taking place in the battlefield of life.

Metaphors by definition are never spelled out - they are drawn out by commentators.


Regarding your other comment: "If that be so, then the Isvara should be at fault for abandoning the jiva to roam around in forests for years while Krsna chose the luxury of Dwaaraka " - I submit that this statement is coming from your understanding of what Isvara is and is also arising from your likes and dislikes (Raga-Dwesha).

Isvara is not the magician appearing there to change the Prarabdha karma of Pandavas. There are our actions and there are hidden variables that we call Daivam that determines the outcome/result/phala of any action.


Let me stop here and will address other objection when I get time in a week or so. In the mean time if the above is not logical and cogent to you please state why.

Regards

tks said:

4. Why is Isvara in our tradition presented as both provider of grace and provider of fear & problems

Click to expand...

The fear factor needs to be addressed by us humans eventually.

The early concept of God was infused with fear cos the human mind had and still has not much idea what lies ahead.

Its just like being in darkness and not knowing what danger lies ahead.

We can all try a simple experiment..just off all the lights in our house and try walking to the bedroom for example..even though we know our house well but still when groping in darkness there is some amount of fear that exists in our mind mainly becos we are unsure what lies ahead even in familiar grounds.

So likewise..technically none of us humans really know anything about God in the true sense..so there is always the element of "fear" when dealing with the Unknown.

Therefore early humans started off prayers with the fear factor of the Unknown and then started to lace their prayers with Praises when understanding of Spirituality improved.

Further more to gain strength we first have to identify our fears.

Once we conquer our fears with the new found strength then we can face the "problems" called Existence.

Now the next is why some feel the Iswara is also viewed as the giver of problems.

This could be to make us the Jeeva "identify" with Iswara.. that is we can only give ourselves problems by our actions and inactions..so if we feel Iswara is supposed to give us problems..how are we to overcome that?

The answer could be ..By eliminating our own problems with co-ordination of Thoughts,Words and Deeds..a troubled mind can only see a "trouble giving" God and a happy mind sees a benevolent God hence we have the Phala Shruti as an anti depressant.
How we perceive Iswara reflects our state of mind.

But is having a happy mind a guarantee in life that no problems lies ahead?

Nope..there is no guarantee..so we are asked to fix our mind to develop a steady state to be equiposed in both happiness and sorrow..loss and gain..victory or defeat and walk out unscathed in all situations.

tks said:

Continuing from post #3
===============
Let me address some of the objections now and complete the response at another time.

Post #1: I stated -
"In fact in B.Gita, Sri Krishna presented as Bhagavan by poet Vyasa , reveals his so called cosmic form to Arjuna
.
.

In B.Gita - Arjuna and Krishna are presented as eternal friends. They represent metaphorically the relationship of Isvara and Jiva."

Post #2 - Objection raised



Response:
I already to alluded to this aspect in my original post (see bolded part). In the entire B.Gita, there is no mention of "Sri Krishna uvacha". All teachings are presented as Isvara's (Bhagavan's) teaching. Arjuna is presented as the Jiva who has the confusion and sorrow. In the larger setting of MB, Sri Krishna and Arjuna are portrayed as friends.

In studying B.Gita our learning becomes more meaningful when we can identify ourselves with sorrow of Arjuna. (We are all Jivas and Iswara is never separate from us).

In chapter 2, verse 3 Sri Krishna as Bhagavan calls Arjuna with this

klaibyam ma sma gamah partha
naitat tvayy upapadyate
Only a dear friend (not even a strict teacher) will call someone impotent or eunuch depending on whose translation you want to take.

Many scholars (you can do your own search) have described B.Gita as a conversation metaphorically taking place in the battlefield of life.

Metaphors by definition are never spelled out - they are drawn out by commentators.


Regarding your other comment: "If that be so, then the Isvara should be at fault for abandoning the jiva to roam around in forests for years while Krsna chose the luxury of Dwaaraka " - I submit that this statement is coming from your understanding of what Isvara is and is also arising from your likes and dislikes (Raga-Dwesha).

Isvara is not the magician appearing there to change the Prarabdha karma of Pandavas. There are our actions and there are hidden variables that we call Daivam that determines the outcome/result/phala of any action.


Let me stop here and will address other objection when I get time in a week or so. In the mean time if the above is not logical and cogent to you please state why.

Regards

Click to expand...

Ok.. I will respond to the substantive parts of your post.

1. A sizeable chunk of the BG is repetition of the mantras found in kaThOpaniSad. There is no mention of Krsna, Vyasa or Arjuna in that upaniSad, It was a customary way of writing in those days to reiterate key principles or philosohpies through the mouth of another. You can find the same in jAtakA tales and also in the conversation among monkeys in Ramayana.

2. The important question is whether the author (or the narrator Vyasa in the instance of BG) intended metaphor. It is not how the reader looks at the things... it is how the writer looked at the things in his narration. We just cant load the words with extra meanings because it appeals to us.

If the word "mouse" is found in "Alice in wonderland" it just means ... the mouse a biological creature. I can not take it to mean the computer mouse that helps me navigate in lieu of key board, just because I am more conversant with the computer mouse.

3. That many scholars described BG as a conversation in metaphor is not a valid argument, in my humble opinion... because it just passes on the onus of the proof to the scholars. That is quoting some higher authority, who cant be questioned and whose authority has to be taken for granted, when upaniSads themselves encourage people to question a premise rather than merely accept the commandment.

4. Adi Sankara, the foremost scholar, has written a bhAshyam on the BG, as also others like Madhava and Sri RamanuAcharyA has used BG in his Sree BhAshyam. Have any of them alluded that Arjuna was a "jeeva"?

Metaphors are **implied similies"" and the context should so permit unambiguously and not be thrust upon.

None of the arguments of course reduces the importance of Krsna's teachings, but should we look for the things that are not there prima facie?

Regards

well, very articulated debate. y see as Lord Krishna says to Arjuna, 'y surrender to me; rest I will take care of' surrender shud be in total without question. then only one can understand, appreciate, evaluate and debate. at the same time I have no business to question anyone raising any issues on Rudram etc. as someone said in this forum, I have read rudram, chamakam etc with clear meaning. I attended classes in Delhi on Rudram when that learned person explained all these with clear-cut meaning. Above all, when y listen rudram, chamakam etc with closed eyes, y simply enthral yrself. I did. - srinivasan

renuka said:

The fear factor needs to be addressed by us humans eventually.

The early concept of God was infused with fear cos the human mind had and still has not much idea what lies ahead.

Its just like being in darkness and not knowing what danger lies ahead.

We can all try a simple experiment..just off all the lights in our house and try walking to the bedroom for example..even though we know our house well but still when groping in darkness there is some amount of fear that exists in our mind mainly becos we are unsure what lies ahead even in familiar grounds.

So likewise..technically none of us humans really know anything about God in the true sense..so there is always the element of "fear" when dealing with the Unknown.

Therefore early humans started off prayers with the fear factor of the Unknown and then started to lace their prayers with Praises when understanding of Spirituality improved.

Further more to gain strength we first have to identify our fears.

Once we conquer our fears with the new found strength then we can face the "problems" called Existence.

Now the next is why some feel the Iswara is also viewed as the giver of problems.

This could be to make us the Jeeva "identify" with Iswara.. that is we can only give ourselves problems by our actions and inactions..so if we feel Iswara is supposed to give us problems..how are we to overcome that?

The answer could be ..By eliminating our own problems with co-ordination of Thoughts,Words and Deeds..a troubled mind can only see a "trouble giving" God and a happy mind sees a benevolent God hence we have the Phala Shruti as an anti depressant.
How we perceive Iswara reflects our state of mind.

But is having a happy mind a guarantee in life that no problems lies ahead?

Nope..there is no guarantee..so we are asked to fix our mind to develop a steady state to be equiposed in both happiness and sorrow..loss and gain..victory or defeat and walk out unscathed in all situations.

Click to expand...

Good post, at least I understand this one in this thread LoL - cant say I agree with all that is said.

zebra16 said:

Ok.. I will respond to the substantive parts of your post.

1. A sizeable chunk of the BG is repetition of the mantras found in kaThOpaniSad. There is no mention of Krsna, Vyasa or Arjuna in that upaniSad, It was a customary way of writing in those days to reiterate key principles or philosohpies through the mouth of another. You can find the same in jAtakA tales and also in the conversation among monkeys in Ramayana.

2. The important question is whether the author (or the narrator Vyasa in the instance of BG) intended metaphor. It is not how the reader looks at the things... it is how the writer looked at the things in his narration. We just cant load the words with extra meanings because it appeals to us.

If the word "mouse" is found in "Alice in wonderland" it just means ... the mouse a biological creature. I can not take it to mean the computer mouse that helps me navigate in lieu of key board, just because I am more conversant with the computer mouse.

3. That many scholars described BG as a conversation in metaphor is not a valid argument, in my humble opinion... because it just passes on the onus of the proof to the scholars. That is quoting some higher authority, who cant be questioned and whose authority has to be taken for granted, when upaniSads themselves encourage people to question a premise rather than merely accept the commandment.

4. Adi Sankara, the foremost scholar, has written a bhAshyam on the BG, as also others like Madhava and Sri RamanuAcharyA has used BG in his Sree BhAshyam. Have any of them alluded that Arjuna was a "jeeva"?

Metaphors are **implied similies"" and the context should so permit unambiguously and not be thrust upon.

None of the arguments of course reduces the importance of Krsna's teachings, but should we look for the things that are not there prima facie?

Regards

Click to expand...

Sri Narayan -

We may not be the'same page' to reach alignment I think. Our background and focus seem to be vastly different.

I will suspend my judgment for now and spend time required to see if it is possible to close the disconnect.

I want torespectfully say that many of your comments comes across to me as either a factoid of not any particular relevance to the discussion, or statement of obviousities or inferences that seem broken at ground zero *from my vantage point*.

Let me explain with another metaphor. Suppose two people - persons A & B decide to have a scholarly discussions about a topic in advance mathematics like say Geometric quantization and A starts defining some aspects of Hilbert's infinite dimensional space.

B then says the distance between two points is a straight line. A hears what B says and tries to get back to the topic by giving a decent interpretation saying 'oh that is true, not sure why you say that, but it is only true in Euclidean space '.

B responds saying there is a problem using the word space since one can mistake for the more recent use of Cyber space. …

I obviously exaggerated the metaphor to make a point.

These are not sarcasm statement or put down of any kind but they are just critique of your posts only. I will explain by going a bit more in depth with my reasoning.

I can be corrected by all means of my impressions and to do so I want to take the following approach.

After providing amplifying comments and my sense about where this is going, I will ask you some questions.

Your answer will give me better insight as to where you are coming from. I will then be able to respond to your 'objections' in a more meaningful manner.

It is entirely possible that in trying to answer my questions some of your initial objections may go away. So there is a value in your answering the questions that follow

A)Factoids of no relevance to points, some even patently wrong:

1. Your point 1 is partially correct - Yes there are verses in B.Gita chapter 2, chapter 15 (for example) and some concepts that have direct correlation to Kathopanishad verses. Terms like 'large chunk' is false!

This point regardless is irrelevant because B.Gita is a Smrithi and Upanishad is a Sruthi. In Sri Sankara's commentary he brings out many more specific references to other upanishads in appropriate places be it in Avatarika or in Purvapakshi-Siddhanta dialogs . The reason he gives specific references to Sruthi is because B.Gita being a Smrithi but regarded as the essence of all Upanishads in terms of what it teaches.

Besides B.Gita is not just Brhmavidya but is also a Yoga Shastra. In any case, ALL Upanishads, Brahma Sutra,B.Gita have one and only message and therefore they are consistent.

Q1 - I would like to explain your specific objectives for studying B.Gita vs studying Upanishads ?

Q2- What do you see are the difference in focus between Bhashyam of Sri Sankara as opposed to those of others (another factoid you mentioned that many Bhashyas exist).

1. You say Krishna, Arjuna etc are not mentioned in Kathopanishad. Indeed that is true!

Q3:why would you expect references of characters to be identical between Kathopanishad and B.Gita (for that matter any two scriptures)?

Statement of Obviousities that do not seem to add anything to what you may be trying to convey

1. Point 2 first of all raises the questions as to why you study B.Gita in the first place (Q1 already noted).

Vyasa may be a single person or could be a family name that is attributed to many scriptures. If your main point is that people should not overstate and read more into what there is - I agree with you. But no serious scholar makes the mistake of taking the word that has multiple meanings and apply them incorrectly as your metaphor suggests.

If your point on the other hand is that people use technologies and today's words to create new interpretation, that is entirely possible but in serious scholarly discussions that kind of examples get exposed in a 'New York minute'! Such people lose credibility very quickly for their scholarship.

Let me use your own analogy to make a different point.

The mouse in 'Alice in wonderland' was initially a drawing as a cartoon and printed and distributed.

The mouse drawing was repeated many times later, pictures taken and turned into animated light on a screen. The mouse now appears as light (on and off) on a screen.

The mouse then existed as a digital file and in next technological revision it even lost its existence as a computer files stored as 0 and 1.

The mouse has become even more subtle as a logic data structure in a program where the entire cartoon movie is produced by programs and its logic - it is hard to pinpoint where that mouse is anymore.

Then this 'mouse' in its momentary existence in a subtle form makes its way to a TV via many forms undergoing many changes - bits and bytes, air waves etc., analog and digital medial and then selectively lights up a LCD screen or LED screen to provide an appearance of mouse to a person watching.

Several decades ago a child may see a book and read the story, today they may have a Youtube movie downloaded of the same story. In all these transformations of the mouse, the story and its value has not changed unless done deliberately. But sure enough the representation of the mouse has undergone radical changes.

This metaphor can be used to describe certain vedantic concepts (not the scope of the discussion here)



The point is that good teachers use the technologies correctly to amplify universal principles embodied in the teachings

B)The last part -basic breakdown

1. Your point number 4. You must have very clear idea what a jiva (jeeva) is by now. If not there is no dialog possible.

Do you know that Sri Sankara's commentary starts somewhere in the middle of chapter 2 because he does not waste one word on useless discussions or on obvious items.

Q5-What is your understanding of the word Jiva , what do you think Arjuna is as presented?

1. In your post 2 - you mentioned Sisupala etc - those have stories and Purana as the basis. My opening post was not addressed to anyone who is into magic, puranas or even the first three parts of Vedas as the primary focus area.

I hope you know that the 'knowledge part' of Vedas completely negates (NOT rejects) the Samhitas, Brahmanas and Aranyaka sections.

Myfocus is from the knowledge perspective ONLY which does not mix well with others. There are Suktams and others like Sri Rudram not found in Vedanta but have vedantic context and they come under the knowledge sections even though in placement they may not be at the end of Vedas.

It is hard to appreciate the real meaning of Sri Rudram without knowledge of Vedanta to some extent.

C)More Questions

I agree with your assertion that principles of Occam razor should apply.

You have mentioned your interest in contradiction free understanding in your post #2. So I have a number of very specific questions about your understanding of Sri Rudram in a way that is without any seeming contradictions.

In the next post I will summarize the above questions and few ask more questions from Sri Rudram.


I type and spend little time revising - please bear with grammar , spelling etc.


Regards

Questions

1. I would like to explain your specific objectives of studying B.Gita vs Upanishads are?
2. What do you see the difference in focus between Bhashyam of Sri Sankara as opposed to others?
3. why would you expect references of characters to be identical between Kathopanishad and B.Gita?
4. What is your understanding of the word Jiva , what do you think Arjuna is as presented? If he is not a jiva what is he in the story?

Questions from SriRudram

5. ओंनमोभगवते॑रुद्रा॒य
As you know the root word Rudra isderived from the word रु, to produce sound, to cry and रुद्, to shed tears and द्रु, to flow, run, melt. So the Isvara is one who makes you cry and to make a grown person cry one has to terrorize them. How do you deal with this aspect of Isvara the terrorist when you are offering your Namaskaram and while chanting since isvara is supposed to be all about Love and compassion? (there are other meanings but this meaning I have provided above is a legitimate one and is very essential part (and cannot be discarded))

6. The above meaning is not an anomaly. I will go to few more Anuvakas for some more examples here and there that the description of Isvara is not very complimentary as stated- in fact they are downright nasty. It occurs throughout Sri Rudram but I will pick a few to ask you as to how you resolve the contradictory meanings even in the same sentence - For example : नमो॒ वञ्च॑ते परि॒वञ्च॑ते स्तायू॒नां पत॑ये॒ नमो॒ in Anuvaka 3 - the meaning is Namaskaram to the one who cheats now and then, one who cheats all the time and the one who is the God of those who steal !

7. Continuing on Anuvaka 3 - let us look at this : नमो॑ निचे॒रवे॑ परिच॒रायार॑ण्यानां॒ पत॑ये॒ नमो॒ Here the gist of the meaning is Namaskaram to one is the Lord of the thieves of the forest (like highway robbors)

8. Let me go to Anuvaka 5 to pick lines about Isvara (Rudra) where the lines have contradictions built in . Many lines have this but I will pick one to ask your views. नमो॒ नील॑ग्रीवाय च शिति॒कण्ठा॑य च॒ - Here the meaning is : Namaskaram to the blue-necked one with white throat.

You cannot refer to some Puranic story as to why Lord Siva has blue neck because this verse/teaching of Isvara's form occurs in vedas ( Taittriya Samhita) and it cannot refer to a Puranic story for its reference being that Veda is the ultimate authority in its own right.

9. Let me ask one more question from a different source. My guess is that you do Sandhyavandam with some regularity. As you know one of the key part of preparation before Gayatri Japam is giving Argyam. There is a Puranic story about thirty million asuras called Mandehas, that wants to attack and devour the sun at Sandhya time. So the one doing Sandhyavandanam is asked to sprinkle water which becomes like Vajra Ayudha to attack these monsters, not to kill them but simply make them ineffective momentarily. This kind of explanation seem meaningless in today's world. First there is really no Sun rise or Sun set from Sun's view point. Second spraying water with Mantra is all about some magic and is fine for a youngsters. How do you reconcile this story and still realize the importance of this part of the ritual and do it with Shraddha?

10. Given that interpretation by a teacher is sometimes needed to resolve the apparent contradictions, what is your criteria to assess when an explanation is correct and when it is not? In other words how do you know someone is not making things up while explaining?

This is just to get a better understanding of where you are coming from and how you resolve contradictions. I hope you will answer spending time like I have making them up now!

I may have to travel next weekend - will try to address your response and reply to other queries when possible

Regards

tks said:

You cannot refer to some Puranic story as to why Lord Siva has blue neck because this verse/teaching of Isvara's form occurs in vedas ( Taittriya Samhita) and it cannot refer to a Puranic story for its reference being that Veda is the ultimate authority in its own right.

9. Let me ask one more question from a different source. My guess is that you do Sandhyavandam with some regularity. As you know one of the key part of preparation before Gayatri Japam is giving Argyam. There is a Puranic story about thirty million asuras called Mandehas, that wants to attack and devour the sun at Sandhya time. So the one doing Sandhyavandanam is asked to sprinkle water which becomes like Vajra Ayudha to attack these monsters, not to kill them but simply make them ineffective momentarily. This kind of explanation seem meaningless in today's world. First there is really no Sun rise or Sun set from Sun's view point. Second spraying water with Mantra is all about some magic and is fine for a youngsters. How do you reconcile this story and still realize the importance of this part of the ritual and do it with Shraddha?

Click to expand...

I have added the part of your post regarding puranic stories vis-a-vis.. to the sandhya vandanam because it is relevant.

1. Contrary to the belief that the story of mandehas is contained only in purANams, (notably Vishnu PurANam,Garuda PurANam), the mandehas story has a mention in both Taittiriya Samhita and Taittiriya AraNyaka - 2.2 - swAdhyaya brahmaNam (both Srutis) and the explanation is similar, if not more basic. If need be, I can furnish the relevant khAndam and anuvAkam numbers to you.

1(a) The simplest symbolic view point is that mandehas is not a physical rAkshasha... but it is mind + body (manaH + dehaH). Such personifications are common in Sruthi and we have a rishi's name coined as Deergha Tamas and in Smrithi we find such personifications, like for example ashta-vakra.

2. Regarding the real non-setting of sun and non sun rise, the issue does not come into the picture at all, because that knowledge was probably not available to the rishis. In fact there are Sruthi passages that describe as sun a disc and the sun hides under the earth. That the sun is visualised as a calf in the womb of mother earth is found in Sruthi passage -- taittiriya Aranyakam -- also known as aruNa praSnam.

3. There are two ways to reconcile the issue. One to admit that vedas contain artha-vAdas, that is passages containing eulogies of certain acts and mantras (as concluded by the pUrva-meemAmsAs and contained in Jaimini PM Sutras) in this case the glorification of gAyatri mantrA. The second is to admit the real reason for the symbolism of arghyam is no longer applicable or forgotten.

3 (a) But the symbolism of sun being the universal conscience keeper and the Atman being the Self-conscience keeper and the equation between the two is brought forth by utterances such as "asAvAdityO Brahma...brahMaivAham.. brahmAiva satyam"

3 (b) Invocation of sun is also symbolic as the impeller of action.. as the first mantrA of yajurveda starts with "iShe tvA... Urje tvA.....devO vaH savitA pryApathu SresTathamAya karmaNa"... etc. urging the lethargic body and slothy mind to propel into action.


4. While on the subject of sandhyA-vandanam, it would be pertinent to point out that this simple ritual has undergone a lot of transformation, particularly in respect of its mantra portions. The vaishnava influence of modifying sandhyA-vandanam mantras to make mention of Hari,Kesava and nArayana is quite evident.

5. If need be, I can furnish the details of sandhyA vandanam as contained in Bodhayana paddhati, which has only vedic mantras and no mention of "yamAya Dharma rAjaya" etc. which you mentioned in some other post.

6. The avAhanam of gAyatri etc. are basically a tAntric method or a hybrid tAntric method and we do not find this AvAhanam or any Suklam bharadharam or mama-upAta etc. in Sroutha yajnas.

7. That sandhyA-vandanam does not contain even a cursory agni kAryam also makes it an entrant of sutra period.

8. Adi Sankara in his various BhAshyams does not make even a mention of sandhyA-vandanam although he makes a clear mention of agnihOtram like agnihOtrA-ityAdi etc. If he has made such a mention (of sandhyA vandanam), I surely missed it and would thank you if you can give me a reference.

9. According to me, sandhyA-vandam forms the foundation of upAsana-khanda, which I will address briefly when attending to your other queries. To the extent I have followed your posts, I have not got any indication of your views on that subject of upAsana khanda so far.....

tks said:

8. Let me go to Anuvaka 5 to pick lines about Isvara (Rudra) where the lines have contradictions built in . Many lines have this but I will pick one to ask your views. नमो॒ नील॑ग्रीवाय च शिति॒कण्ठा॑य च॒ - Here the meaning is : Namaskaram to the blue-necked one with white throat.

Click to expand...

I would like to have your views on the following two points......

(a) Rudra praSnam ,, anuvAkam 4.5.11.3 reads: "neelagreevAH, SitikanTA, SarvA aDaH kshamAcharAH.. Surely the number of Rudras are more, rather innumerable if one goes by the Sruthi vAkaym of rudras being present on the earth and in the abode of heavens...

Is Rudra a single entity or a phenomenon??

(b) Rudra praSnam 4.5.1.3 - "tayA nasthanuvA SamthamayA giriSantA abhi chAkashbhi"..... You are the One who is wont to be seen among our folks, the resider in the mountains"

Who is being seen.... and Who are the seers?

tks said:

1. why would you expect references of characters to be identical between Kathopanishad and B.Gita?

Click to expand...

I will talk with references to the repetition of kaTopaniSad mantras in BG:

If the characters are not identical, the characters are likely to be MADE UP to enunciate the point the narrator wishes to convey, is my preliminary point.

By all accounts, kaTOpaniSad, is a text earlier to BG. For ISwara to re-state the same points which are in domain knowledge of a few (if not in complete public doman) appears to be superfluous.

Yama, the celestial character in kaTopaniSad, does not claim to be Isvara.

Nor is he being shown as Omniscient or Omnipresent. He is narrated to be unaware of Nachiketa's visit to yama's abode and inadvertently makes him wait for 3 days and yama is elsewhere when Nachiketa visits him throwing serious questions about is omnipresence.

Ishwara to re-state the **truth/s** already brought out by another being, even if he be a celestial, is a bit hard to digest.

zebra16 said:

I have added the part of your post regarding puranic stories vis-a-vis.. to the sandhya vandanam because it is relevant.

1. Contrary to the belief that the story of mandehas is contained only in purANams, (notably Vishnu PurANam,Garuda PurANam), the mandehas story has a mention in both Taittiriya Samhita and Taittiriya AraNyaka - 2.2 - swAdhyaya brahmaNam (both Srutis) and the explanation is similar, if not more basic. If need be, I can furnish the relevant khAndam and anuvAkam numbers to you.

1(a) The simplest symbolic view point is that mandehas is not a physical rAkshasha... but it is mind + body (manaH + dehaH). Such personifications are common in Sruthi and we have a rishi's name coined as Deergha Tamas and in Smrithi we find such personifications, like for example ashta-vakra.

2. Regarding the real non-setting of sun and non sun rise, the issue does not come into the picture at all, because that knowledge was probably not available to the rishis. In fact there are Sruthi passages that describe as sun a disc and the sun hides under the earth. That the sun is visualised as a calf in the womb of mother earth is found in Sruthi passage -- taittiriya Aranyakam -- also known as aruNa praSnam.

3. There are two ways to reconcile the issue. One to admit that vedas contain artha-vAdas, that is passages containing eulogies of certain acts and mantras (as concluded by the pUrva-meemAmsAs and contained in Jaimini PM Sutras) in this case the glorification of gAyatri mantrA. The second is to admit the real reason for the symbolism of arghyam is no longer applicable or forgotten.

3 (a) But the symbolism of sun being the universal conscience keeper and the Atman being the Self-conscience keeper and the equation between the two is brought forth by utterances such as "asAvAdityO Brahma...brahMaivAham.. brahmAiva satyam"

3 (b) Invocation of sun is also symbolic as the impeller of action.. as the first mantrA of yajurveda starts with "iShe tvA... Urje tvA.....devO vaH savitA pryApathu SresTathamAya karmaNa"... etc. urging the lethargic body and slothy mind to propel into action.


4. While on the subject of sandhyA-vandanam, it would be pertinent to point out that this simple ritual has undergone a lot of transformation, particularly in respect of its mantra portions. The vaishnava influence of modifying sandhyA-vandanam mantras to make mention of Hari,Kesava and nArayana is quite evident.

5. If need be, I can furnish the details of sandhyA vandanam as contained in Bodhayana paddhati, which has only vedic mantras and no mention of "yamAya Dharma rAjaya" etc. which you mentioned in some other post.

6. The avAhanam of gAyatri etc. are basically a tAntric method or a hybrid tAntric method and we do not find this AvAhanam or any Suklam bharadharam or mama-upAta etc. in Sroutha yajnas.

7. That sandhyA-vandanam does not contain even a cursory agni kAryam also makes it an entrant of sutra period.

8. Adi Sankara in his various BhAshyams does not make even a mention of sandhyA-vandanam although he makes a clear mention of agnihOtram like agnihOtrA-ityAdi etc. If he has made such a mention (of sandhyA vandanam), I surely missed it and would thank you if you can give me a reference.

9. According to me, sandhyA-vandam forms the foundation of upAsana-khanda, which I will address briefly when attending to your other queries. To the extent I have followed your posts, I have not got any indication of your views on that subject of upAsana khanda so far.....

Click to expand...

Dear Sri Narayanan

Thanks for sharing your comments.

You are far more knowledgeable about Puranas and the Upasana aspects of the Vedas than I am. So I will take your assertion as accurate without need for any further references that Mandehas story is described in Taittiriya Samhita and Taittiriya Aranyaka as well.

The real question is still about *how satisfied* one is about reconciling the significance and explanation in the light of today's knowledge.

The story of Mandeha will amount to some imagination from today's context.

If one were to reconcile saying that the Arghyam is no longer applicable - why do them at all? If it is about glorification of Gayatri Mantra why would it need glorification ?

If certain descriptions are not in line with new knowledge of today how can one accept Sruthi to be always true?


All elements of a ritual (which is like a 'role play' in modern management courses) has to be in a categoric footing for it to have lasting value and inspire a lasting sense of commitment to observe every day.

However if the reconciliation you have provided is satisfactory to you that is all that matters.


Item 3b makes sense , though item 3a would have to be taken as a leap of faith.

Regarding item 4, 5, 6, 7 : I understand your points fully (and do agree).


On point 8: Sri Sankara only has provided commentaries on the Gayatri Mantra only and did not recognize any other ritual aspects. So I understand and agree with your point.

Item 9: I am personally not practicing any Uapsana aspects involving Kamya Karmas. They are all negated (not rejected) in the Knowledge sections anyway and are not of interest to me at all.

Nithya Karmas are my only focus which include Sandhyavandanam and Shraddham etc. These are done for mental discipline and mental 'purification' only. There are other simpler and more sustainable explanations for the rituals of Sandhyavandanam that do not involve imaginative stories. However the basis for this all is for Jnana only which is seeking the truth of oneself.

zebra16 said:

I will talk with references to the repetition of kaTopaniSad mantras in BG:

If the characters are not identical, the characters are likely to be MADE UP to enunciate the point the narrator wishes to convey, is my preliminary point.

By all accounts, kaTOpaniSad, is a text earlier to BG. For ISwara to re-state the same points which are in domain knowledge of a few (if not in complete public doman) appears to be superfluous.

Yama, the celestial character in kaTopaniSad, does not claim to be Isvara.

Nor is he being shown as Omniscient or Omnipresent. He is narrated to be unaware of Nachiketa's visit to yama's abode and inadvertently makes him wait for 3 days and yama is elsewhere when Nachiketa visits him throwing serious questions about is omnipresence.

Ishwara to re-state the **truth/s** already brought out by another being, even if he be a celestial, is a bit hard to digest.

Click to expand...

Dear Sri Narayanan

The characters and their names occurring in Upanishads are actually not relevant aspect in communicating a piece of teaching.
The entire set of Upanishad unfolds the truth of Isvara.

If I have to solve an algebraic problem in middle school I may start labeling an unknown as x, another person may call that a y.
In the end after the solution is arrived at it is irrelevant if it was called x or y.

To gain the value of B.Gita one need not have any truth to the historical existence of Sri Krishna at all.

I will wait for your fuller description but the real question is about the purpose of studying these scriptures.

All characters are imaginations coupled with some possible historical basis. In the end the characters themselves have limited role in communicating the essence of teaching

Now certain verses (chapter 2 for example), certain metaphors (Chapter 15) and certain terms (like Karma) have overlap with those found in Kathopanishad.

The 'architecture' of how B.Gita teaching unfolds is more in alignment with Chandogya Upanishad.

The first 6 chapters are descriptions of you (Tvam), the next six chapters (chapter 7 to 12) are about that isvara (Tat) and the last 6 chapters are about what the equivalence actually means and does not mean.

zebra16 said:

I would like to have your views on the following two points......

(a) Rudra praSnam ,, anuvAkam 4.5.11.3 reads: "neelagreevAH, SitikanTA, SarvA aDaH kshamAcharAH.. Surely the number of Rudras are more, rather innumerable if one goes by the Sruthi vAkaym of rudras being present on the earth and in the abode of heavens...

Is Rudra a single entity or a phenomenon??

(b) Rudra praSnam 4.5.1.3 - "tayA nasthanuvA SamthamayA giriSantA abhi chAkashbhi"..... You are the One who is wont to be seen among our folks, the resider in the mountains"

Who is being seen.... and Who are the seers?

Click to expand...

Your question:
Is Rudra a single entity or a phenomenon??

My response: Neither.

A 'single' entity has a meaning only when such an entity is viewed in the context of many entities.
Rudra as Isvara is not an entity and certainly not describable.
However in the context of this verse and few verses above this one (11.3) there are descriptions of 1000s of devatas (meaning unlimited devetas) whose power is none but the manifestation of Rudra only. Here the male form of Isvara/Rudra includes Shakthi.
In vedic language any entity is a devata. In that sense even a dead body can be considered a devata because there is "power" of apparent disintegration evident. Any and all such forces of power is nothing but Rudra is the message.

A phenomena exists only in space-time. Rudra who is the essence of space-time and the cause of space-time is not bound by space-time and hence is not a phenomena. The early invocation of the Lord describes Rudra as the manifestation of Time itself

नम॑स्तेअस्तुभगवन्विश्वेश्व॒राय॑महादे॒वाय॑त्र्यंब॒काय॑
त्रिपुरान्त॒काय॑त्रिकाग्नि-का॒लाय॑कालाग्निरु॒द्राय॑
नीलक॒ण्ठाय॑म्रुत्युंज॒याय॑सर्वेश्व॒राय॑
सदाशि॒वाय॑श्रीमन्महादे॒वाय॒नमः॑

In the above the description of Rudra is one who is fire that burns away the three periods of time (past, present, and future).
He is Time personified and unaffected by past, present or the future


b) Your question:
Who is being seen.... and Who are the seers? - 1.3

My response:

The translation of the word girisanta has multiple meanings - one of them is mountain.

In fact the descriptions that have been used are

1. गिरौ - कैलासे नित्याविर्भूतो यः प्राणिभ्यः शं तनोति स गिरिशन्तः

2. गिरौ- वेदे तिष्ठन्नर्थरूपेण शं तनोति


The first one about one who is in the mountain (Kailasha)

The second is about Rudra being in the words of the Sruthi

There may very well be more meanings. The second one fits more because except for a poetic description it is hard to imagine the Lord of cosmos and Lord of space-time residing in a place/mountain called Kailasha

Meaning then is "you are the embodiment of Sruthi and its contents and giving 'absolute' happiness (not relative happiness) ".

Here you is of course addressing Isvara and us/we the seers are the person we take ourselves to be.

Dear Tks,

tks said:

Item 3b makes sense , though item 3a would have to be taken as a leap of faith.

Click to expand...

This was your response to my post. I am reproducing the relevant portion for easy reference :

** 3 (a) But the symbolism of sun being the universal conscience keeper and the Atman being the Self-conscience keeper and the equation between the two is brought forth by utterances such as "asAvAdityO Brahma...brahMaivAham.. brahmAiva satyam" **

AND

tks said:

नम॑स्तेअस्तुभगवन्विश्वेश्व॒राय॑महादे॒वाय॑त्र्यंब॒काय॑
त्रिपुरान्त॒काय॑त्रिकाग्नि-का॒लाय॑कालाग्निरु॒द्राय॑
नीलक॒ण्ठाय॑म्रुत्युंज॒याय॑सर्वेश्व॒राय॑
सदाशि॒वाय॑श्रीमन्महादे॒वाय॒नमः॑

In the above the description of Rudra is one who is fire that burns away the three periods of time (past, present, and future).
He is Time personified and unaffected by past, present or the future

Click to expand...

My humble submission is the above is NOT a Sruthi passage. You will not find this rk in any of the Vedas.

I have no problem in accepting it as a VALID Sruthi passage because tradition believes it to be so. It is a leap of faith both for ME and YOU to accept it as “Sruthi”.

The point of contention is that GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE have to be filled up by LEAPS OF FAITH for further progress, till such time the Gaps are filled by VALID KNOWLEDGE,

zebra16 said:

Dear Tks,

This was your response to my post. I am reproducing the relevant portion for easy reference :

** 3 (a) But the symbolism of sun being the universal conscience keeper and the Atman being the Self-conscience keeper and the equation between the two is brought forth by utterances such as "asAvAdityO Brahma...brahMaivAham.. brahmAiva satyam" **

AND

My humble submission is the above is NOT a Sruthi passage. You will not find this rk in any of the Vedas.

I have no problem in accepting it as a VALID Sruthi passage because tradition believes it to be so. It is a leap of faith both for ME and YOU to accept it as “Sruthi”.

The point of contention is that GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE have to be filled up by LEAPS OF FAITH for further progress, till such time the Gaps are filled by VALID KNOWLEDGE,

Click to expand...

Dear Sri Narayanan

Will respond to other responses in a week.

In reading your post above, I think I have not explained something clearly. Since you said you have followed my posts in the past I made an assumption.

The traditional approach is Sruthi is right no matter what and whatever that is written in Sruthi must be right!
So it becomes a matter of showing that an interpretation is correct because it is in alignment with Sruthi. This is what all other religions do by showing alignment to their scriptures with the scriptures being taken as absolute truth.

In my posts I have stated in the past and will state now again that I do not accept this approach at all. I have *come to discover* that Sruthi is not wrong *yet* which means understanding (here I do *NOT* mean understanding by using the faculty of mind alone) is the primary focus.

I was commenting on YOUR post and my comment about leap of faith is not to be extrapolated to what I have stated (which is at the end of the same post.)

You are correct that the the invocation verse I cited of Sri Rudra is not in the rk. However it is but a definition of Isvara being the cause of all that is here including the notions of space and time. That verse fits with that definition which being a starting point requires no proof. It is possible to ask if such a starting point is even reasonable and it can be shown so (not attempting to delve into that here because it is far too involved).

As far as 3b - that assertion has extraordinary basis in both modern science and other upanishadic teaching and IS still subject coming under the umbrella of understanding).

It is a statement much like a theorems of the mathematics genius Ramanujan. It happens to be right. Similarly many assertions of Sri Sankara coming from different types of reasoning about nature of space and time have more recently come to be true with science which puts their learning in even stronger basis. I think I have made this point in my other posts.

I have not accepted anything as a leap of faith because in the end it has to be understood by me. If there are some axiomatic statements (one not requiring proof they have to be stated upfront) and the knowledge part of the Sruthi does that very well.

The various other Karmas specified in other sections of Veda including those involving all kinds of sacrifices are actually negated by the knowledge section of Sruthi and does not have relevance for me. Their validity cannot be proved or provable.

Given lack of further responses to most of my questions (post #11) from Sri Narayanan, let me conclude the conversations with this note.

If there are future responses that brings out anything new I will address them then.

I have answered the last post from Sri Narayanan (Post #21) already (post #22). I will amplify on that and add few other points and close this part of the conversation.

There are grammatically wrong sentences in post #22 that I am unable to edit anymore so I will leave the errors as they are. The invocation verse is not found in Vedas and hence I called them invocation.

It is not true to assert that everyone takes what is found in Sruthi to be absolute truth by leap of faith. I do not. In fact I do not take anything by leap of faith unless it is stated upfront as a starting point.

I also do not discard something if it is not exactly found as a verse in Sruthi. Ultimately my understanding fully in a contradiction free manner is my only criteria.

After all in our tradition key teachings are presented as Q&A (Upanishads, B. Gita etc) because the knowledge part of any study cannot be accepted by leap of faith. If one does that then what they think they gained cannot be called knowledge.

People who focus on the Upasana and the first three sections of vedas rarely get exposed to the knowledge sections except in the passing. The knowledge sections of the teaching negates the previous section without discarding.

As a metaphor the modern science negates the notions of space and time of Newtonian mechanics but it does not discard it. Newton's laws are enough to design even a rocket's shape but it is not enough to calculate trajectory to Mars because the true nature of space and time has to be accounted for in shooting a probe to Mars.

The reason for my list of questions is to understand how someone resolves 'apparent' contradictions in rituals and in meanings of certain verses that describe Isvara. The intent is to lead through discussions to resolve the earlier asked questions or statements of contradictions.

To demand an explanation without contradictions is excellent but it only makes sense if one is not accepting anything by leap of faith. At least I hold myself to that test.

If we take the Sandhyavandanam ritual as prescribed, there are profound opportunities for self growth only when one strives to understand the intent of each action.

It is irrelevant if the verses are in Sruthi or not. It is also irrelevant if there are historical reasons as to who influenced the current practice. In fact our mind likes to create divisions based on religion, tradition, place of origin, place we live, race, caste, job, family etc.

The teaching embedded in Sandhyavandanam ritual is beyond the differences that mind may see in terms of followers of Vishnu vs Siva etc.

Let me just amplify that with the example of the starting part of ritual.

We start with Achamanam.

1. Achyutaya Namaha
2. Anantaya Namaha
3. Govindaya Namaha

This does not mean we are offering our salutations to a Vaishnava God!

The distinctions for example disappear when we look at the meaning of the invocation.

1. Achuta is a namearising from a verbal root of something that does not undergo change (of itspowers). The universe called Jagat stands for something that is constantlychanging (every moment). However all change is sustained by a changeless corewhich is true in any thing we observe. Even in Physics we understand changeand solve problems by understanding what is changeless such as 'what isconserved' (e.g., momentum is conserved or energy is conserved which is thechangeless core in a change)

So the Lord sustainsthis universe (which is in constant change in any of the smallest unit of time)as a changeless core and that is the only infallible thing there is. Achutarefers to this aspect of Isvara.

2. Ananta - Limitless in terms of space and time. Rudra is invoked with similar meanings as well.

3. Govinda - In this instance it is better to have a focus away from Puranic stories and take this to mean 'one who protects the cows'. It means one who is understood by the Sruthi (Go means 'sabda' in this instance). Similar invocations are in Sri Rudram also using other names.

When one has a focus on the knowledge aspects the differences created by mind disappear.

Ultimately all knowledge that is learnt itself becomes an impediment and have to be given up by a true sadhaka. But that is a different point altogether.

Observing Nithya Karma has deep significance and can result in preparing our mind. There is nothing to take anything by leap of faith.

Finally the reason I do not like to debate about faith is because it is not subject to the domain of understanding. When 'leap of faith' is mixed with some logic (citing scriptures) which is what all religious traditions do, there is nothing to debate in my view. This is because faith plus reasons is still faith!

In one of my earlier posts I mentioned about one mixing a small amount of poison into their favorite food. The entire food because poisonous.

The greatness and uniqueness of our tradition is that we have knowledge section of Vedas that is subject to Q&A and understanding. We have Smrithis that can change with time to make sure one can assimilate the learning in their current context. Our tradition does not focus on history. The Ganapathi Upanishad (raised to the status of Upanishad) is only 300 years or so old. It is one of

There may be some open questions like Phala Sruthi etc I will respond in the future if there is further interest.

Sri auh - Let me know if you had something in mind with your one post ..

We start with Achamanam.

1. Achyutaya Namaha
2. Anantaya Namaha
3. Govindaya Namaha

This does not mean we are offering our salutations to a Vaishnava God!

Click to expand...

Vaishnavas do not offer their salutations to a "vaishnava god". They offer it to GOD. So in effect there is no vaishnava god as such.

2. Ananta - Limitless in terms of space and time. Rudra is invoked with similar meanings as well.

Click to expand...

Govinda - In this instance it is better to have a focus away from Puranic stories and take this to mean 'one who protects the cows'. It means one who is understood by the Sruthi (Go means 'sabda' in this instance). Similar invocations are in Sri Rudram also using other names.

Click to expand...

So every word in sruti or smriti can be understood only when it is related to Rudram which again is part of sruti. But does it not reveal a mindset here? I wonder.

Ananta and Govinda become secular terms because we find these names mentioned in Rudram. Good logic!

"........mentioned about one mixing a small amount of poison into their favorite food. The entire food (because)becomes poisonous." --Very true.

This is not a starting point for a discussion. This is to just record the thoughts that came to the mind of an observer when he read the elaborate presentation. These may be explained or not. No problem. LOL.

Shri tks,

I was a bit curious when you and Shri zebra16 started to have a debate on what seemed to be viewpoints (on both sides, albeit with interpretations and references).

Somehow the feeling, I got, (as you correctly said) being in a position of total ignorance about anything remotely connected with God, the possibility, admissibly quite remote, that this conversation could somehow present an alternate picture of the obscurities, of the rituals and symbolism, in hinduism, faltered away unwillingly, akin to the last drop of oil, from a handle, resisting its fatalistic plunge to the ground.

As shri zebra16 has so rightly put it, it is but a "leap of faith" to believe that a sruthi exists in the first place ! Is it not? That, rather, sums it up.

I dont have anything else to say since everything has all been said earlier, unless you have the inclination to engage in another 4qd...

auh said:

Shri tks,

I was a bit curious when you and Shri zebra16 started to have a debate on what seemed to be viewpoints (on both sides, albeit with interpretations and references).

Somehow the feeling, I got, (as you correctly said) being in a position of total ignorance about anything remotely connected with God, the possibility, admissibly quite remote, that this conversation could somehow present an alternate picture of the obscurities, of the rituals and symbolism, in hinduism, faltered away unwillingly, akin to the last drop of oil, from a handle, resisting its fatalistic plunge to the ground.

As shri zebra16 has so rightly put it, it is but a "leap of faith" to believe that a sruthi exists in the first place ! Is it not? That, rather, sums it up.

I dont have anything else to say since everything has all been said earlier, unless you have the inclination to engage in another 4qd...

Click to expand...

Sri auh - Not sure I have understood your question properly.
Is it about "existence" of sruthi? It is available!

Originally it was revealed to the world by some visionaries who are called Rishis and later transmitted orally through generations until it is available as words written down for you and I to read.

An analogy to understand this could be to view Newton as a Rishi, which he is actually. After all universal laws of gravitation was operating all along since the manifestation of this universe but Newton had the vision to see what is not obvious to others from a falling apple for example.

He transcribed his thoughts in words which is available to us as Laws.

Law of gravitation itself does not have human authorship but the laws as written down and communicated has a human Rishi behind it (in this example it is Newton). From our point of view it could be Newton or someone else from another continent. We can examine today without bothering about history if the laws of gravitation are right or not.



If you are asking if Sruthi (Vedic truths as revealed and passed down to us) has to be believed by a leap of faith my answer is a resounding NO though tradition of Hindu religion demands one to accept vedas unconditionally.

There are four major sections of the Vedas. The first three sections are there for one to gain discipline of our mind.

Vedas can be metaphorically looked upon as a huge department store where anything and everything is available (யானைலிருந்து
குண்டூசி inclusive may be available) . In the future one could even book a ticket to go to moon. But I may have no interest in elephant or a pin or even travel to the moon.

The first three sections of Vedas focus on rituals and beliefs ("leap of faith"). It may prescribe what Yagna to do to get rain in a town for example. It is impossible to design a test to prove the validity of these rituals because to control all the factors is impossible.

All vintages of Hindu religion fall into this and most in India today are caught up in rituals.

There are newer varieties of rituals born everyday and there are newer Godmen who are deified everyday.

I use the word 'God' to communicate a magician God who is there to do miracles (as noted in our Puranas). I use the word Isvara to communicate what is described in the knowledge section of the vedas (the 4th section).

Anyone that qualifies themselves as belonging to a particular sect has already immersed in divisions which the mind keeps on creating. So when a person says I am a Saiva or Vaishnava, they have already created a division about their 'God' based on some imagination which I call delusion. They cannot understand or comprehend the fourth part of the Vedas at all (which is one reason in my opening post I mentioned that what I write here in this thread is not addressed to those believing by leap of faith of a magician God).

Even those that believe in Vedas (Sruthi) unconditionally have the same mindset as well. They will not accept anything if it is not directly in Vedas.

The real emphasis has to be in understanding which removes the ignorance and confusion once and for all. At that point the teaching is complete. Bhakthi (unconditional Love) automatically is revealed as our true nature.

Most of the world like to 'do' Bhakthi to a delusional model of an almighty. It is not possible to have a dialog with anyone immersed that way. That is one reason I do not read many who have an indoctrinated mindset to their 'God' which they will claim universal or those that have demonstrated latent hate based on their imagination of divisions (which is nonexistent in nature).

The knowledge section is not meant to be swallowed without questioning and understanding. In the beginning the understanding is by mind only. At later points the mind becomes a serious impediment to further the understanding process.

All beliefs are only in a person's mind and hence they are patently false.

Kindly rephrase your question in the light of the above comments. If I am able to understand it I will certainly respond.

I normally review few posts on Sunday (USA time) and write back then. I responded now so that if you have a question rephrased by this coming weekend I will get back to you.

Thanks

Shri tks,

I am now sure that my previous post was not clearly written

I say that one needs to take a "leap of faith" to believe in the vedas, or, to believe that a god exists. The starting point for any such an argument or discussion would be to establish that a god exists. Naturally it follows that one has to define what "god" means so that a meaningful debate can take place.

I am crunching your post#27 into bullets for easy reference.

1) You say that evidence of sruthi is available, and these were revealed to certain visionaries who had managed to tap into that frequency - Gravity is measured and tested unlike, say the purported mahavakya "tattvamasi". There are no measurable parameters of what is mentioned in the sruthi regarding brahman. In fact, brahman is termed as "anirvachaneeya". So how does your view reconcile with this? And more importantly how do you validate the existence of sruthi and its integrity?

2)

The real emphasis has to be in understanding which removes the ignorance and confusion once and for all. At that point the teaching is complete. Bhakthi (unconditional Love) automatically is revealed as our true nature.

Click to expand...

I think this is where you have attempted to convey your point in a, more or less, direct way.

Now the questions - we have to understand the variables that we seek to remove or attain, which are:

a) ignorance - not sure how we can presuppose that we are ignorant unless there is an agreed yardstick of ignorance. Then again, ignorance of "what"? how will an ignorant person understand the point in time when his ignorance has been removed?
b) confusion - we are only confused when we think we are; if we think we are not then we are deluded.
c) teaching - i think you infer the conditioning of the mind from various sources, but does it not carry a truckload of presumptions?
d) unconditional love as our true nature - debatable point, as human instincts are subject to the comfort / discomfort levels experienced as life progresses.

If the above still appeares shallow, I will end with just a simple connection to what you have said

All beliefs are only in a person's mind and hence they are patently false.

Click to expand...

In the context of our discussion, it is a belief that there is a god.

We are not sure of anything and that, perhaps, has given us the liberty to humankind to spinoff tales, the primary reason still being the primal fear of nature. Manifesting in various ways.

Best Regards,

auh said:

Shri tks,

I am now sure that my previous post was not clearly written

I say that one needs to take a "leap of faith" to believe in the vedas, or, to believe that a god exists. The starting point for any such an argument or discussion would be to establish that a god exists. Naturally it follows that one has to define what "god" means so that a meaningful debate can take place.

I am crunching your post#27 into bullets for easy reference.

1) You say that evidence of sruthi is available, and these were revealed to certain visionaries who had managed to tap into that frequency - Gravity is measured and tested unlike, say the purported mahavakya "tattvamasi". There are no measurable parameters of what is mentioned in the sruthi regarding brahman. In fact, brahman is termed as "anirvachaneeya". So how does your view reconcile with this? And more importantly how do you validate the existence of sruthi and its integrity?

2)I think this is where you have attempted to convey your point in a, more or less, direct way.

Now the questions - we have to understand the variables that we seek to remove or attain, which are:

a) ignorance - not sure how we can presuppose that we are ignorant unless there is an agreed yardstick of ignorance. Then again, ignorance of "what"? how will an ignorant person understand the point in time when his ignorance has been removed?
b) confusion - we are only confused when we think we are; if we think we are not then we are deluded.
c) teaching - i think you infer the conditioning of the mind from various sources, but does it not carry a truckload of presumptions?
d) unconditional love as our true nature - debatable point, as human instincts are subject to the comfort / discomfort levels experienced as life progresses.

If the above still appeares shallow, I will end with just a simple connection to what you have said

In the context of our discussion, it is a belief that there is a god.

We are not sure of anything and that, perhaps, has given us the liberty to humankind to spinoff tales, the primary reason still being the primal fear of nature. Manifesting in various ways.

Best Regards,

Click to expand...

Sri auh

I am impressed with your debating style and let me applaud the way you ask questions and also describe how I engage.

I will then respond in the next set of posts to specific points.

Here are the specifics to the engagement thus far.

1. Being respectful to the topic area.

I usually post in the general sections so that one can express their points of views that may otherwise hurt the sentiments of believers in other sections. However I also think it is important to be respectful to a scholarly discussion by not 'spitting' on it . Some do this by bringing in topics of sex or movies in the most inappropriate manner or by 'name calling' or writing extraneious nonsense and steering the discussion somewhere else deliberately.

A milder version of disrespect is to respond perhaps with sarcasm and that too without understanding the context.

In all your engagements you have been appropriately respectful to the topic area

2. Feeling like being a 'crusader' for a cause and interpreting every discussion as an attack on their belief system (I put 'crusader' in quotes to communicate a point, the real crusaders were violent and such a term will not apply to any Hindu living or dead). This leads one to lose the ability to think in their engagement here. Let me illustrate with an example.

Let us say someone is a staunch devotee of a God called Vishnu - V, and the person is an expert in all Puranic stories about V.
Let us say another is a staunch devotee of a God called Siva - S and the person is an expert in all the Puranic stories about V.

Stories about V may make S look like subservient and stories about S may make V look like subservient.
This creates divisions and there are 'crusaders' for both causes.

Now a great thing about Sanskrit is that a word is not constructed arbitrarily as in other languages . In Sanskrit there are 2200 verbal roots and words are created by rules and changes such that a given word has its meaning included in the very word.

We have Sri Rudram depicting the names of S. We also have Vishnu Sahasra Namam that has names describing V.

Suppose I say when we look at the meaning describing Isvara , we find that descriptions of S and V to be one and the same. I may start out with V's meaning and show that it is same as S in its meaning as implied by the words. Establishing this equivalence itself is a cause of issues for 'crusaders' in either camp. One may say , why do you have to validate V by showing it is same as S, how dare you? And vice versa.

This kind of discussion takes place all the time in this forum. With my limited time here I have chosen to mostly skip reading such posts.

Your engagement here seemingly focuses on issues discussed without being taken up by a need to defend a belief.

3. Throwing around opinions which have no basis.

I usually do not respond to opinions when they lack any basis.

If I have to share a opinion then I usually preface with 'in my view' etc and if I don't then in my understanding I am stating what people have accepted as a relative truth.

You have not brought irrelevant opinions into the discussions.

4. To engage in a fruitful discussion you have to hold the other person to a high standards to explain .

I like the way you do hold your end with your questions. I am also pretty hard in the responses (but not towards any person)

5. Respond after reading what is already presented and be willing to go any levels of depth instead of reacting in a knee jerk reaction.

I think you continue to do all this.

So thanks for making the engagement interesting.

Let me now get to the substance of your question

In post #29
Sri Auh

You said

I say that one needs to take a "leap of faith" to believe in the vedas, or, to believe that a god exists. The starting point for any such an argument or discussion would be to establish that a god exists. Naturally it follows that one has to define what "god" means so that a meaningful debate can take place.

Click to expand...

Response:

Even the above set ofstatements and the apparent conclusions drawn itself can be shown to come out of a belief only.

The reason is that in order to make the assertion as quoted above, one would have to know what the Vedic teaching is all about in detail. Then there is this word god - which as you correctly say requires a definition. Without these definitions and understanding it will be not possible to make any statement except those coming out of belief based imagination

Even the starting point for a discussion that god exist to be established would make no sense.



For starters -

• who has to establish god exists , \
• if it is for you why do you have to establish an indescribably entity exists and
• forwhat purpose?

You can come up with any definition of this god entity and it will be possible to come up with a logical argument to show that it is wrong.

Not sure what else to say about this until you share what your definition is. You can say it can only be accepted by leap of faith and I will tell you that there is no need to do that because it will be shown as wrong

I am not losing the thread of what you wanted to communicate. Let me address your other questions now in the next post.

Sri auh in post #29

You say that evidence of sruthi is available, and these were revealed to certain visionaries who had managed to tap into that frequency - Gravity is measured and tested unlike, say the purported mahavakya "tattvamasi". There are no measurable parameters of what is mentioned in the sruthi regarding brahman. In fact, brahman is termed as "anirvachaneeya". So how does your view reconcile with this? And more importantly how do you validate the existence of sruthi and its integrity?

Click to expand...

I did not say anything about tapping into any frequency. By definition of a visionary, there are some that are able to realize a vision beyond what is apparent to most people in a given situation. There is no magic implied here.

Newton saw the apple fall and he saw a larger vision of nature of this ordinary event. In today's world Steve Jobs had a vision and realized that by coming up with ipod which changed the way we began to listen to music.

Your question then is that these are 'concrete' - how can this metaphor apply when dealing with terms that may have no description etc.

We really cannot have a conversation about any Mahavakya because there are assumptions built in that somehow this topic is readily accessible and could be understood without proper background.


Every subject has its own approach to learning and its own means of a 'proof'.

As a starting point, your own statement has a built in contradiction. If something @#$Sdssds (called Brahman for convenience) is defined as the only thing there is, how can you separate yourself from @#$Sdssds to 'measure' whatever that means because even measurement also has to be @#$Sdssds only.

Why should you believe Sruthi or anyone even if a metric and approach was proposed? I will not.


My point is that the analogy to making measurements in a Physics lab cannot apply here. So what is needed to be done is to understand this @#$Sdssds by following the prescription of the Shastras ? For that to happen one needs proper background, otherwise it is all accepted only as leaps of faith.



Let me use an esoteric example to make the point.

Suppose I made a statement

"Symplectic geometry is a branch of differential geometry studying symplectic manifolds and some generalizations; it originated as a formalization of the mathematical apparatus of classical mechanics and geometric optics (and the related WKB-method in quantum mechanics and, more generally, the method of stationary phase in harmonic analysis)"


This is not a nonsense statement but means something for only those that are exposed to the field. As a student doing PhD in theoretical physics I was looking for a mathematical formulation that might simplify certain way of describing reality. So I learnt this area of symplectic geometry and later found not much use for my problem. You may be willing to take by a leap of faith that the statement is likely to be right because you think someone must have understood it.

If you wanted to validate if the above statement is right, you must have a strong motivation and reason to learn all the subject area. It might take about 5 to 10 years of rigorous study in order to become versatile in the above area assuming you have the skills and the aptitude. If I say how much effort it takes you are likely to accept them because you can intuitively see that there are many areas to be mastered in a rigorous learning environment.

Also the subject itself requires a certain approach figured out by its practitioners. You have to subscribe to those learning methods starting with learning the basic pre-requisites.

For some reason, if you were to replace the word Symplectic Geometry with say Upanishad, Mahavakyas and other related topic area you do not think the above reasoning applies.

In my experience proper study of Upanishad is even more hard and will take many more years. For one, you need to have an extraordinary motivation. Second, the teaching focuses more on unlearning than learning which is radically new ! And you have to have the skills of abstraction and some creative thinking.

Evidence of Sruthi is available because we have someone who have transcribed them in words which is available for us. To assert if there is truth in those one has to learn the essence of what it is first in a proper setting satisfying the prerequisites.

I can say with whatever little I know I am yet to find a contradiction and it is simply a vision of what this is all about (you, I , the world/universe/multiverse) .

In fact the notion of space and time as expounded by Sri Sankara is in alignment only with startling conclusion of Einstein and not Newton. The description by Sri Sankara is actually very sound reasoning coming from a different perspective.

Another example is something I wrote about a while ago. Swami Vivekananda was the first to recognize the equivalence of mass and energy from the teachings of Upanishads about nature of reality and communicated that to Tesla. The frequent communication is available even today. Tesla was excited at the possibility but could only show part of the truth. He did communicate his treatment of the topic to Einstein. When Einstein published his seminal work of this equivalence (E being equal to mass times speed of light squared) he did include Tesla's work as an appendix.

These are not proofs about accuracy of teaching embedded in Upanishads but rather they provide supporting evidence.

I can show mathematically rigorous way why this Sandhyavandam prayer towards Sun ("Asavadityo ... " - you can see quote from Sri Narayanan in this thread) is actually a statement of truth as expounded by Einstein about the nature of space/time

Our Shastras do provide an approach to learn Upanishads and that needs to be followed rigorously for many years.

Though a qualified teacher is needed to point you in the right direction, the last part of getting that past our mind has to be done only by you. In Chapter 6 of B. Gita, there is a verse making this point.

More often than not, the direction itself is not correct for most people and hence most are lost. Also people gravitate towards easy way out and are more likely to rely on some Puranic stories for their needs.

Just like Thomas Edison famously said "Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration" we can have a different quote to make a point for this area.

To be enlightened in this area it is 99.999999999% effort and 0.000000001% knowledge.
The effort may take few years for some, and a life time may not be adequate to most.

The starting point for any discussion is 'what is your motivation, why do you want to learn this area'

If it is a casual interest like 'how are dosas made to come out crispy' then it is not possible to reconcile any of the upanishadic statements.

More next week and I will factor your objections if any to what I have written when I respond