"Complicatedism"

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Hi Renuka, Praying for rain & food are for survival of the human race, hence the Karmanyevadhikaraste .. does not apply. Devas are a higher representation of Brahman, ie they are more closer to him like many of our human Guru's (not the fake swamijis) - hence by praying to them we move closer to God. If you look at the entire body of rituals, there are many that help in preserving the humans, help them to avoid disasters, but the core body of ritualistic prayers move us closer to God. Cheers,

Dear JK,

I disagree...Karmanyevadhikaraste should be applicable to all situations and not just being selective.
Yes..when we have a drought...we can take measures to make sure we get rain either by cloud seeding or through water harvesting or through a homa..that is action and what ever we get in return is a reaction.

So one can be selfless and yet pray for benefit of mankind after all Lord Krishna did say "Not to be inactive" Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani –

If as you claim that a Deva is closer to God..they should set a better example to us humans and not be hankering after fruits of ritualistic worship.

You make it sound like to get to the Prime Minister we need to suck up to his Personal Assistant??

I think its high time we Hindus started questioning the logic behind what we were taught.

Not everything can be taken at face value..I feel we need to read everything with a pinch of salt but the salt seems to be increasing and very soon we might actually even drink an ocean of contradiction.

BTW if someone says that they are getting closer to God..I would safely say that he/she is actually moving further away from God.


Just to add...I once read what a female porn star wrote "that some people say that they have found God but if one needs to find God that means he/she never understood that God is within us"

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Kalabairavan Sir,

Your response suggests that you accept the plurality/many different jivas.

Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah is the famous Sankara's Aphorism.

Why do you differ from Sankara's Advaita?

Dear Govinda,

I am a novice here compared to Sangomji or yourself. My knowledge on these matters is limited to a few books that I have read and also the discussions that I have followed here. Therefore, please don't be surprised when I write something that contradicts the established viewpoints of Advaita or any other philosophical system.

The term "inequity" has been used here by Sangom in some of his posts. The very fact that this term is used, doesn't it point to the fact that there are more than one entity involved here? That is what I implied in my post. Even if all jivas were to be part of the same brahman, it appears that this plurality that we experience in this world cannot be escaped. If the emphasis is on compassion (வாடிய பயிரை கண்டபோதெல்லாம் வாடினேன்-வள்ளலார்) then this difference (duality/non-duality) does not matter.

 

[Jaykay767]

Hi Renuka, Sorry, you are interpreting it across areas that it was not intended. Poor farmer who is tilling 2 acres land for survival of his 3 kids, & prays to God for Rain & Grains does not come under the karmanye.... view. The same way for the Sanyasi who out of Hunger prays to God that some will come & give him rice, does not fall under that. It is applicable to the Kings, rich & of course to all of us, that don't do for the sake of Gains. for eg, Children today want to take care of the rich parents, but not otherwise - LOL !!.. Cheers,

 

[Jaykay767]

Dear KRS, have edited my post -. Cheers,

 

[sarang]

Everybody who has the power and authority to bless you or do a favour are to be pleased. Common sense. If 'do your karma' is accepted, then whatever is defined and mandated for that karma must be followed. Everybody's intellectual, spiritual and emotional levels are different. One has to pamper one's own body so that the body helps him to go to different levels.

Krishna tells arjuna - if you win you will enjoy the earth, if you lose you will enjoy something else. He gets a reward in this loka or paraloka.

Yagna, nityakarmas, puja, japa, loukika karmas etc. are all part of a whole. No one - Krishna, rishis, acharyas have said that one should give up rituals. Buddha tried it but did not succeed. EVR loyalists tried it, but now homams and yagams are back with more involvement by all sections of hindu society.

If rituals and practices contradict our perception of religion, then the perception is wrong; we have to go back to the basics and start reading the what swami sivananda or maha periyavar has written on sanatana dharma.

Dear JK,

I do not see how??

Some rituals and poojas are supposed to be to please some Devas for rain and grain etc.

What I can not understand is we humans are supposed to be Karmanyevadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadacana (entitled to the action and not hanker for the fruits of actions).....We read enough times that without homa etc the Devas do not get their share of bounty from humans.

You see if we need to worship an entity that entity needs to be a perfect example to us man and be better than us.

So why do the Devas need to be pleased?

Can't they also be Karmanyevadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadacana?

Can't they just do what they are supposed to do without expecting anything in return??


That is why sometimes I feel rituals do not really show the right path..it contradicts our very perception of religion itself.

Sometimes I feel Lord Buddha's teaching made the most sense and logic.

 

[renuka]

we have to go back to the basics and start reading the what swami sivananda or maha periyavar has written on sanatana dharma.

Somehow I get the feeling that Lord Buddha's teaching still makes the most sense as compared to most other gurus.

Others are somewhat more interested in tradition and culture instead of getting to the actual facts.

 

[KRS]

Dear Jaykay767 Ji,

Thank you very much.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS, have edited my post -. Cheers,

 

[Jaykay767]

Hi Renuka, Lord Buddha's teaching does not stand in isolation to our religion. Buddhism & Jainism originate from our Vedic religion. The 23rd Thirthankara is Buddha, so both these are the same religion. The followers of Lord Buddha & Mahaveer have defined this as separate religion, but they are founded in our Vedic/Upanishad... lineage. Cheers,

 

[Jaykay767]

Our religion provides many paths - ritualistic path for the common man, spiritual path for the Sanyasi's, Dharma/Karmic path for the rulers. Over time, they have stratified into our tradition where we take the key aspects of all the 3 paths.

 

[renuka]

Hi Renuka, Lord Buddha's teaching does not stand in isolation to our religion. Buddhism & Jainism originate from our Vedic religion. The 23rd Thirthankara is Buddha, so both these are the same religion. The followers of Lord Buddha & Mahaveer have defined this as separate religion, but they are founded in our Vedic/Upanishad... lineage. Cheers,

Yes..that I am certainly aware of.

But Lord Buddha has certainly done a good job for us mankind...He gave us the essence.

In fact when I read His teachings..I can't help thinking of this Subhashita:

Anantasastram bahu veditavyam
Svalpascha kalo bahavascha vighnah
Yat sarabhutam tadupasitavyam
Hamso yatha ksheeramivambumisram.

The Sastras are endless; there is much to be known;
time is short, obstacles are many;
that which is essence should be grasped,
just as the swan does in the case of milk mixed with water.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji Sir,

You said:


One thing I have learnt in my life is that each one of us on this earth is unique, with our own likes and dislikes, coming from very unique circumstances - place we grew up, our parents, siblings, relatives and friends, culture, religion, wealthv, unique physical/mental capabilities, emotions, spirituality and perceptions.

The key word here, as you may have surmised is 'uniqueness' of a human being.

How does then One idiom of God can suffice? Whatever works for you may not work for someone else. There is no one 'logical' way when it comes to faith and practicing sadhana and worship. It depends on the uniqueness of a person, comprised of so many different dimensions, what appeals to them.

This is why I am grateful to my religion. Because it allows me to express spirituality and advance myself based on my own metrics and inclinations. This is why I am a firm believer in reincarnation, as I believe that each life an athma goes through is to perpetually advance it through spiritually to attain Moksha. Moksha is nothing but a ripened fruit falling from a tree at the touch of a breeze - but it has to go through being a flower first and all the stages in between.

This is why I do not like any system that is top down in the interest of a broader community. People should live in freedom from any ideology, be it social, religious, political or anything else. Religions to me are there for us to pick and practice, if we want to. No more, no less. If we use them wrongly, shame on us. Thus I do not look down on any valid religion that has a philosophical foundation on it's own and practices morality according to the natural laws as applied to current living.

Just my pov.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS,

I think it is unnecessary for me to state here that I am not attempting any kind of "proselytization" to my pov. It so happened that in this thread somehow I had to write my idea of Karma, rebirth, god etc. Since these are somewhat unorthodox, many types of reactions came in and wherever some clarifications were called for/doubts expressed, I tried to explain my stand. I believe your above post is not against this sort of an exercise, when you write "People should live in freedom from any ideology, be it social, religious, political or anything else. Religions to me are there for us to pick and practice, if we want to. No more, no less. If we use them wrongly, shame on us.".

Just as each one here (and outside) has his/her own uniqueness and own pov on these matters, I also have one but it is may be 'maverick' to some.

Regarding god, AtmA, mOksha etc., we do many things taking the opinions expressed by one scripture or another, one Acharya or another and all people ultimately die, indeed have been so dying even from pre-diluvian ages, but none has as yet known clearly what happens after death to the personality which was so assiduously cultivated within the physical body. To me this points to the falsehood of all the various theories, philosophies, methods, etc. My reading and thoughts have provided me with a new method which I am just recording here. But when you write as though I am doing something illegal, it raises a doubt whether the freedom from any ideology means the freedom only to choose your own preferred ideology and not to express here anything original. I would have definitely appreciated if I had written anything against the majority practice, but I had only stated —

There was a time when I also used to pay obeisance to and worship all the different deities' images, idols etc. like most others. But on reading more and more of our scriptures, epics and our six philosophical systems, my attitude changed at some point of time and I started feeling that the ways of religion do not guide us correctly. From then onwards I have stopped visiting temples, doing pooja or keeping gods' images for personal worship. I am convinced that god is within each one of us as wisely said in the siddhar pADal :—

Kindly let me know whether you have any objection to the above.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji Sir,

Thank you for your response. First, let us dispel a myth: I am not at all 'an adept' at Astrology. I know little and it is an ocean, and call it foolishness if you will, whenever I dare predict, I have just been lucky a lot of times. I don't know why.

Anyways, I think if we agree that there is predetermination of events in a person's life, and it has to fit like a jigsaw puzzle with respect to others who have material interaction with this person, then, whether it is the selective Karmaphala that is floating out there attach themselves to that person at birth, or an entity after death with 'vasanas' that is born to give expression to the Karmaphala that the entity acquired during previous lives are just different models.

I tend to believe in the latter model, because of the teachings of my own Guru, and others that make sense to me. The 'vasana' theory also appeals to me to explain the phenomenon that are evident in some in childhood of expertise, especially in those disciplines that require long training and rigor, such as music.

In this context, I would like to know the source and origins of the 'Karna Mantra' that you have quoted. I am ignorant on this.

Of course in all this, we have not touched upon the role of 'free will', but that is a vast different subject altogether.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS,

As stated by me in post #236, I have no intention or agenda to proselytize people to my pov. Each one of us is free to hold on to our own individual beliefs but what I wrote in my aforesaid post (Regarding god, AtmA, mOksha etc., we do many things taking the opinions expressed by one scripture or another, one Acharya or another and all people ultimately die, indeed have been so dying even from pre-diluvian ages, but none has as yet known clearly what happens after death to the personality which was so assiduously cultivated within the physical body. To me this points to the falsehood of all the various theories, philosophies, methods, etc.) holds good, I believe.

Karna mantra is from Kathaka Samhitaa of Black Yajurveda; it also figures in the Apastamba Srouta Sutra. This is the mantra to be uttered into the right ear of a dying brAhmaNa by his eldest son or whoever will do the further funeral rites. In practice, however, this mantra is uttered after death, nowadays.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sangom Ji Sir,

I am replying to both your posts above.

If my response somehow raised a thought in your mind that I was trying to muzzle your views, then, I take ownership for not explaining myself clearly.

What all I am saying is that as you are entitled to your view (which is unique and is suited to your personna), so do others to theirs. While I am sure you subscribe to this view (I get this from your above postings), it did not come through as such and that is why I brought up the fact of our uniqueness and different spiritual.mental/emotional maturity levels and the idea that what works for one in these matters may not work for some others.

I agree that we do not have any words from those who are dead on these matters. However there are words on these, if one believes, from saints who has achieved the samadhi stage and have said words. Again, to believe these one has to have the faith. Your position of not having faith in these words and experiences from these folks is equally valid for yourself.

Hope I am clear now. Thanks also on the details of the Karna Mantra.

Regards,
KRS

 

[palindrome]

I thank sirs Sangom, KRS and Raghy for their replies. Raghy sir's post on Ahura Mazda got me to write this (because a lot of people assume asuras was always persian or did not become indian). This is going to be long (will be breaking into parts), please bear with me. Some of the vedic mantras may not have dialectic marks, forgive me. This may also help understand some historical transformations, and thus, various contexts of karma and maya, interpreted by various texts.

The Ahura Mazda is no doubt the Asura Mazda or wise lord of the Zoroastrians. However, the epithet asura (used to denote the asuras) was used for Devas also within the vedic texts. I present the specific cases of the asuras, Rudra and Varuna. Agni is also an asura and is praised as Varuna himself in Krishna Yajur Taittiriya Samhita 1.2.10; but Agni was seized and re-established by the Devas in the Taittiriya Samhita Prapathaka 5. It denotes a struggle scenario leading to the antagonism between devas and asuras. Reasons for the antagonism can be found in the text itself. All the below verse are from the Krishna Yajur Taittiriya Samhita (TS) unless otherwise indicated.

In the early part of the TS, there is no antagonism against asuras. In fact they are praised as: tvam agne rudro asuro maho divas tvam śardho mārutam pṛkṣa īśiṣe (TS 1.2.14.1) meaning, Thou, O Agni, art Rudra, the Asura of the mighty sky, Thou art the host of the Maruts, thou art lord of food…

Then the conflict happened in prapathaka 5 leading to the rekindling and reestablishment of fire. The whole prapathaka 5 is worth reading. For synopsis and for those who cannot go thru the text, am presenting some verses below:

devāsurāḥ saṃyattā āsan te devā vijayam upayanto 'gnau vāmaṃ vasu saṃ ny adadhata| idam u no bhavaiṣyati yadi no jesyantīti tad agnir ny akāmayata tenāpākrāmat tad devāvijityāvarurutsamānā anv āyan tad asya sahasāditsanta so 'rodid yad arodīt tad rudrasya rudratvam| yad aśrv aśīyata tat||

Meaning, The gods and the asuras were in conflict; the gods, in anticipation of the contest, deposited in agni their desirable riches (thinking),'This will still be ours, if they defeat us. Agni desired it and went away with it. The gods having defeated the asuras pursued Agni desirous of recovering it. They sought violently to take it from him. He wept; in that he wept (arodit), that is why Rudra has his name. The tear that was shed became silver; therefore silver is not a suitable gift, for it is born of tears.

Thereafter TS 1.5.7.6 says there is a pipe with projections, by which Devas made piercings of hundreds of Asuras; in that he takes up the kindling-stick with this verse, the sacrificer hurls the hundred-slaying (verse) as a bolt against his enemy to lay (him) low without fail. Since agni now belongs to the devas, they have the samidham (kindling-stick) which they use against the asuras.

War between Devas and Asuras continue in the TS 1.5.9 which says:
ahar devānām āsīd rātrir asurāņām te sura yad devanaṃ vittaṃ vedyam āsīt tena saha || rātrim prāviśan te devā hīnā amanyanta te 'paśyan| āgneyī rātrir āgneyāḥ paśava imam evāgnim stavāma sa na stutaḥ paśun punar dāsyatīti te 'gnim astuvant sa ebhya stuto rātriyā adhy ahar abhi paśūn nir ārjat te devāḥ paśun vittvā kāmām akurvata ya evaṃ vidvān agnim upatiṣṭhate paśumān bhavati||

Meaning, The day was the gods', the night the Asuras'. The Asuras entered night with all the precious wealth of the gods; the gods thought that they were abandoned; they perceived, 'The night is Agni's, cattle are Agni's; verily let us praise Agni here; he being praised by us will restore our cattle).

The fight for agni is closely linked to the fight for cattle. In Prapathaka 5, there is reestablishing of Agni (punarAdheyam). Since Pusan and Tvastr established it, so the cattle are said to be Pusan’s and Tvastra’s. Manu also established it so the offspring are those of Manu. However, Agni after being established desires a share, and so assailed the offspring and cattle of the sacrifice. On doing so, the verse says, “having removed ‘it’ one should re-establish ‘it’, unite with his own potion and is (thus) verily appeased”.

From the above, as one can note, having defeated the asuras, the devas now have agni (the right to agni), the samidham (kindling-stick) and the cattle. It is obvious the fight for Agni pertains also to cattle because cattle are sacrificed to Devas. This point (of animal slaughter) may be compared against Zoroastrian belief, where Ahura Mazda (the asura) tells Zarathustra to protect the cow. Possibly this indicates, the Asuras were defeated and the Devas now have the cattle and the right to sacrifice them. Possibly, cow protection continued amongst those who opposed the so-called brahmanical sacrifices.

In the first verse of the TS itself, Rudra’s dart is sought to be avoided and there is a proclamation to abide with the lord of the cattle and protect the cattle of the sacrifice. The verse says the vedi’s sacrificial straw was made by Manu fashioned with the Svadha call. Since in the subsequent verses we find Manu restablished agni for devas it is apparent Manu, Pusan, Tvastra were companions with Indra as the slayer of the brahman Vrtra. The Yajur is said to belong to the Kshatriyas, but we see the brahman being established at the beginning of the sacrifice.

After this fight (between devas and asuras), Agni is addressed as Asura (just once) in verse 1.6.6.4. The fight between devas and asura is continued in verse 1.6.10:
yajñasya vai samrddhena devah suvargam lokam ayan yajñasya vyrddhenasuran para bhavayan yan me agne asya yajñasya risyad ity aha yajñasyaiva tat samrdhhena yajamanah suvargam lokam eti yajñasya vyrddhena bhratrvyan para bhavayati| agnihotram etabhir vyahrtibhir upa sadayed yajñamukham va agnihotram brahmaita vyahrtayo yajñamukha eva brahma||

Meaning, With the prosperous part of the sacrifice the gods went to the world of heaven, with the unsuccessful part they overcame the Asuras. 'Whatever, O Agni, in this sacrifice of mine may be spoiled', he says; verily with the prosperous part of the sacrifice the sacrificer goes to the world of heaven, with the unsuccessful part he overcomes the foes. With these Vyahrtis he should set down the Agnihotra. The Agnihotra is the beginning of the sacrifice, these Vyahrtis are the Brahman; verily at the beginning of the sacrifice he makes the Brahman.

Whether Manu, one of those who reestablished Agni for the Devas is the same Manu of Manusmriti, it is not possible to say. But in Manusmriti (or in other dharmashastras in general), various forms of meat including cow meat hallowed by mantras is fit for consumption of dvijas and brahmans. There are a number of verses in the Krishna Yajur Taittariya Samhita itself which prescribe slaughter of various types of cattle to the devas. IMO, although popular belief credits ahimsa for animals to Buddhism and Jainism, the credit should go to the first teacher in all known literature who gave the message, ie, to Ahura Mazda. It is an other matter that Zoroastrians today eat all kinds of meat while Brahmans who perform brahmanical sacrifices are largely vegetarian

To be contd..

 

[palindrome]

Contd from post # 239:

Incidentally, post the war between Devas and Asuras, Varuna is yet called an asura. The TS 1.5.11.3 says: ava te heḍo varuṇa namobhir ava yajñebhir īmahe havirbhiḥ| kṣayann asmabhyam asura praceto rājann enāmsi siśrathaḥ kṛtāni||
Meaning, Thine anger, O Varuna, would we avert with reverence, With sacrifices, with oblations, Ruling, O wise Asura, O king, Do thou unloose the sins we have committed.

The same verse 1.5.11.3 continues: Ud uttamaṃ varuṇa pāśam asmad avādhamaṃ vi madhyamam śrathāya| athā vayam āditya||
Meaning, Unloose from us, O Varuna, the highest, the lowest, the midmost knot; Then may we, O Aditya, in thy rule, Be guiltless before Aditi.

In Krishna Yajur 1.6.11, Prajapati is rising in power. He is proclaimed as the one who makes pure. Agni is now of the Gods and is invoked with Soma by the deceitful (dabhya) devas who deceive asuras with adabhya (the undeceivable):
annādyam ātman dhatte dadbhir asy adabdho bhūyāsam amuṃ dabheyam ity āha| etayā vai dabhyā devā asurān adabhnuvan tayaiva bhrātṛvyam dabhnoti| agnīṣomayor aham devayajyayā vṛtrahā bhūyasam ity āha| agnisomabhyam va indro vrtram ahan tabhyam eva bhratrvyam strbute| indragniyor aham devayajyayendriyavy annado bhuyasam ity aha|

Meaning, By sacrifice to the god Agni, may I be an eater of food', he says; Agni is among the gods the eater of food; verily by means of him he confers the eating of food upon himself. 'Thou art a deceiver; may I be undeceived; may I deceive ', he says; by that deceit the gods deceived the Asuras; verily by this he deceives his foe. 'By sacrifice to the gods, Agni and Soma, may I be a slayer of foes', he says; by means of Agni and Soma Indra slew Vrtra; verily by means of them he lays low his foe.

What this adabhya (the undeceivable) is (with which devas deceive the asuras), we do not know. But the role of cattle gets clearer in prapathaka 7, where the cattle deserted the asuras and went to devas; and the sacrifice of the asuras is also broken. The verse says “the Ida (cattle) is as it were a breach in the sacrifice; half they eat, half they wipe; in this regard the sacrifice of the Asuras was broken; the Devas united it by the holy power (Brahman)”. Here, as we can see, the sacrifice was also associated with the asuras, but the devas "united it" after winning agni (or the right to agni) and samidham (the kindling stick).

The fight between devas and asuras continue all thru TS, whilst Prajapati rises in power. Verse 7.3 says “Whatever the gods did in the sacrifice, the asuras did; the gods perceived the anvaharya (that which makes good, a rice preparation offered as a sacrificial gift) connected with Prajapati; they seized it - then the gods prospered, the asuras were defeated; he who knowing thus brings the anvaharya prospers himself, his foe is defeated”. In this verse we also get a glimpse of Devas formulating something (here the anvaharya) in order to seize control of the sacrifice.

This composition goes on to proclaim that with the victory of the new and full moon sacrifices the gods conquered, and by means of the new and full moon sacrifices they drove away the Asuras. It also says by the bundle (vedena) the gods won (avindanta) the desirable wealth of the Asuras, and that is why the bundle has its name. Note: the word vedena is interpreted as the study of vedas by sayana.

Why Prajapati has risen to become all powerful is understood from TS 7.11:
"Agni with one syllable won speech; the Ashvins with two syllables won expiration and inspiration; Vishnu with three syllables won the three worlds; Soma with four syllables won four-footed cattle; Pusan with five syllables won the Parkti; Dhatr with six syllables won the six seasons; the Maruts with seven syllables won the seven-footed Çakvari; Brhaspati with eight syllables won the Gayatri; Mitra with nine syllables won the threefold Stoma; Varuna with ten syllables won the Viraj; Indra with eleven syllables won the Tristubh; the All-gods with twelve syllables won the Jagati; the Vasus with thirteen syllables won the thirteenfold Stoma; the Rudras with fourteen syllables won the fourteenfold Stoma; the Adityas with fifteen syllables won the fifteenfold Stoma; Aditi with sixteen syllables won the sixteen fold Stoma; Prajapati with seventeen syllables won the seventeenfold Stoma."

The kanda 7 of the TS describes how Indra also needs Prajapati for relevance. Verse 7.3 (describing the sattras) says: “Indra was on a level with the gods, he was not distinguished from them. He ran up to Prajapati; he gave him this (rite) of fifteen nights. He grasped it, and sacrificed with it. Then indeed he became distinguished from the other gods…… Indra was as it were loose and unfixed. He was afraid of the Asuras. He ran up to Prajapati; he gave him this (rite) of fifteen nights as a bolt. With it he overcame and conquered the Asuras and attained prosperity.”

Contd..

 

[palindrome]

Contd from post # 240:

The rise of Prajapati does not however, prevent oblations and praises from being offered to Rudra and Varuna. They continue in relevance. Though Varuna is praised, oblations are sent to him, either his bond or his noose is sought be loosened or removed, indicating Varuna was associated with something mysterious (as also with nritti or death). In kanda 7 the asura still has importance, as the courser (arvan) of the haya (steed) despite the continued struggle between devas and asuras. But the Viraj no longer belongs to Varuna.

There is great deal of effort by various figures to protect as well as obtain the Viraj. The TS 8.1.5 says "...the Rudras are murderous, for they have no support. Therefore they say, 'The midmost day of the three-day night is not fixed; for it was moved.' The Ajya (Çastra) of the midmost day is in the Tristubh metre. He recites the Samyana hymns, then recites the Sodaçin, that the day may be made firm and be not loose. Therefore in the three-night rite, the first day should be an Agnistoma, then an Ukthya, then an Atiratra, for the separation of these worlds. On each day in succession he gives three hundred continuously, for the continuance of these worlds. He should not break the decades lest he should thus destroy the Viraj. Now for the thousandth Indra and Visnu strove. Indra reflects, 'By this Visnu will appropriate all the thousand.' They made arrangement as to it, Indra got two-thirds, Visnu the remaining third; verily the fact is recorded in the verse, 'Ye twain have conquered.' It is the Achavaka who recites this verse. Now (some say), 'The thousandth is to be given to the Hotr'; what is left over, is left over for the Hotr; the Hotr is the receiver of what has not been taken. Then others say, 'It is to be given to the Unnetr.' This is left over of the thousand, and the Unnetr is the one of the priests who is left over. Then some say, 'It is to be given to all those who have a place in the Sadas.' Then some say, 'It should be driven away and allowed to wander at will.' Then some say, 'It is to be given to the Brahman and the Agnidh [6], two shares to the Brahman and the third to the Agnidh. For the Brahman is connected with Indra, the Agnidh with Visnu; (verily the division is) just as they two agreed upon. Then some say, 'The one which is beautiful and of varied colour is the one to be given.' Then others say, 'The one which has two colours and on either side is spotted is the one to be given', for the gaining of a thousand. That indeed is the march of the thousand (sahásrasyáyana). There are a thousand Stotriyas, a thousand gifts (to the priests); the world of heaven is measured by a thousand; (verily it serves) for the winning of the heavenly world."

Prajapati finally prevails with the Viraj with the dasharatra sacrifice (sacrifice of the 10 nights) in TS 8.2.5: "...Prajapati desired, 'May I be propagated.' He saw this Daçahotr, and offered it. By this he created (the rite) of ten nights, and by this (rite) often nights he was propagated. If one is about to consecrate oneself for (the rite) of ten nights one should offer the Daçahotr; verily he creates by the Daçahotr (the rite) of ten nights, and by (the rite) of ten nights he is propagated. The sacrifice of ten nights is connected with the Viraj. He, who knowing thus sacrifices with (the rite) of ten nights, attains the Viraj. The sacrifice of ten nights is connected with Prajapati"

The Viraj assumes quite some importance. The TS 4.10 says "...The Stomas being sung together make up the Viraj, and two verses are redundant; the Gostoma has one too many, and the Ayustoma one too few. The Jyotistoma is the world of heaven, the Viraj is strength; verily by it they go to the world of heaven."

Having been removed from association with the Viraj, in Kanda 7 of the TS, Varuna and Mitra are associated with anushtubh. This probably indicates the ‘vedicization’ or ‘devafication’ of Varuna (ie, absorption into vedas as deva after removing association with asura and of his role with maya). The Viraj is associated with the Atharva (hence asura?), and in Aitareya Upanishad Viraj is the intermediary between the atman and the world. By disassociating Viraj from Varuna, it is apparent, Varuna also becomes disassociated from his mysterious role in life and death. Probably, this led to the rise of Yama to be associated with the noose (pasha) and death.

The Viraj (a metre) is said to belong to both devas and asuras. TS 7.3.9 says “The Viraj dividing itself stayed among the gods with the holy power (Brahman), among the Asuras with food. The gods desired, 'May we acquire both the holy power (Brahman) and food! They saw (the rite of) these twenty nights. Then indeed they acquired both the holy power (Brahman) and food, and became resplendent and eaters of food”. This can be compared with a verse in Manusmriti 3.225 which says the malevolent asuras snatch away food if the sacrificer does not hold it with both hands. By this time the asuras were not only demonized but also subjugated.

Varuna in Avestan is interesting too. Just as Varuna made his abode in the waters in the TS 1.8, the Avestan equivalent *Vouruna was associated with waters. He was identified as Apam Napat and was a high lord. The Vedic and Avestan description of his function are similar, as the holder of the law and right. Just as Varuna’s wives are the waters in Rig, so also in Avestan. In Vedic, through maya Varuna controlled forces of nature. Similarly, in Avestan literature he is described as humāyi (possessed of good maya); and his maya was supposed to have caused all beneficent workings. However, his downfall came about by reform by Zoroaster. With asura Mazda (Ahura Mazda) declared as the creator, by Zoroaster, *Vouruna lost his characteristic functions. In the yasna haptAnhairi, worship was transferred from Ahura *Vouruna to Ahura Mazda, including association with waters. Some argue *vouruna himself was directly transferred into Ahura Mazda, however this view is debatable and open to research.

So we see Varuna, the asura, associated with the beneficent and with maya (called asura maya since Varuna is asura) in both Vedic and Avestan; underwent transformation in both. This can be imo considered the earliest transformation of the concept of maya.

To sum up, we could say the asura was initially not a demonized object, but considered mighty, but as class of beings got into conflict with devas, which is characteristic of vedic compositions. The asura was still associated with minor functions and was not yet removed away in the vedic period; though their demonization started in the vedic period. Some deities (such as agni, varuna, prajapati) underwent transformation as also in relevance in the vedic period.

Contd...

 

[palindrome]

Contd from post # 241:

In the puranas with dharmashastras, the complete downfall of asuras is evinced. The dasyus and shudras considered classes of asuras are represented differently. Dasas are those not associated with any body part of the virat purusha (ie, they are out of the fold), whilst shudras find a role in the fold (but as slaves). Manusmriti recognizes the manes of asuras, the rite of asuras in marriage (which is payment of a bride-price, but says it should never be used), and the culture of asuras (which is no performance of sacrifice). Obviously, by this time, they lost all right to agni (in terms of a role in brahmanical sacrifices).

Ahura Mazda is identified by some historians as Asura Medha (wisdom or intellect). While Asura Medha rose in power in Zoroastrian beliefs, Asura Medha’s downfall is found in Vedic literature in Rigveda time itself (Ref: A history of Zoroastrianism, Vol 1. The early period) Mary Boyce (editor)). While, the Zoroastrians remained worshipers of the old gods (asuras), the vedic people became worshippers of a younger set of asuras (whom they called devas). This is a conflict between the old and new, in concept, in belief and in the way their philosophies got shaped. In Persian belief Indra, Saurva (supposedly Shiva but debatable) and Naunghaithya (vedic Nasatya), opposed the three Amesha Spentas, ie., Asha Vashista, Khshathra Vairya and Spenta Armaiti. Indra and devas (daevas) are demons in Avestan who follow angra mainyu (essentially, destructiveness) and are discarded.

As regards an early asura, the Rudra, things are just as fascinating. I would like to compare Manusmriti, some puranas, and TS. Manusmriti says Sukalins are manes of Shudras and the issues of Vasishtha. The Sukalins are also known as mAnasa and kAla and the pitr (fathers) of shudras (sometimes they are also fathers of brahmans). The Shiva Purana (and some other literature also) links kAla or kAlabhairava to Rudra. In some Puranas, Brahma creates Rudra. But in Shiva Purana specifically, Shiva creates kAlabhairava (who chops off Brahma’s head to establish Shiva’s superiority).

Imo, on comparing Taittiriya Samhita with the puranas, it appears the asura, Rudra was originally a brahmana, and highly venerated, but from whom Agni was violently taken away by Devas. With Prajapati (Vaivasnara) being all powerful, Rudra found himself of some importance to whom oblations were offered, but diminished in role and importance. The Rudras have even become murderous in some verses. In puranas, Rudra became identified as Shiva and thus become elevated. Notably, Rudra is also identified with Narasimha.

As can be seen from the above posts, the conflict between devas and asuras indicates removal of asuras (persians) from a role in vedic ‘brahmanical’ sacrifices. The dAsA is also argued to be persian dahae. Obviously the indo-aryan speakers were not a homogeneous entity, just as the Austroasiatic and Dravidian. All these linguistic groups encompassed far too diverse cultures amongst themselves. Though the asura, dasa, are people who perform no (brahmanical) sacrifices in Manusmriti; it is apparent the asuras continued worship of their own deities (who are also called asuras) through their own ritualism (of abhichara, sorcery, etc).

Since atharva supposedly belongs to the asuras, it is apparent after a struggle period, they found a pre-eminent role as the brahmana of all sacrifices. This is despite parts of the vedas, puranas, dharmashastras conveying a great deal of antagonism against them. All thru this period great transformations must have taken place. The concept of maya (first associated with *vouruna or varuna) and thus of brahman (interpreted variously in vedic texts) and karma remains very debatable. This is despite the fact Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhava, the Siddhas, and various faiths have presented their own view of it; with a great deal of philosophy associated with it.

Ramanuja is said to have wondered "if maya is another manifestation of brahman what is the purpose in making the veil of ignorance so impenetrable"? Ramanuja wondered if maya is real or unreal. This book makes an interesting comparison and asks -- if everything is illusion, you too are illusion (if that be a misrepresentation). Thus Vishishtadvaita reasons, every apparition of delusive maya - even objects seen only in dreams - is actually a special manifestation of grace towards you of the One Reality - wholly imaginary, wholly unimaginable, which is God, of whom you yourself are part of.

-End-

 

[palindrome]

Sri/Smt. Palindrome, Greetings.

Rama did not start the fight with an unarmed defenseless person. When the fight started Ravana was adequately armed but lost or had his weapons broken in the course of the fight. Ravana did not want out when he lost his weapons. Had his left arm was cut off, he would have wielded that arm in his right hand as a weapon. If Rama was following 'dharma', then he should have engaged with Ravana in an arm to arm combat; or should have asked him to get any weapon of his choice to continue to fight. But only when Rama stopped fighting, Ravana was helpless. Rama should have completed Ravana then. Telling him to come back later was humiliating.

I do not know about 'collective karma'. In fact, Had Rama went with Vali instead of murdering him, the whole war could have been averted.

I thought about this a lot yesterday. Unfortunately, I do not have a counter possibility, except that perhaps Ravana's time had not come or that though wounded Ravana was blessed with the boon to live on. So perhaps Rama let him go (knowing well Ravana could not be killed no matter how badly wounded). It is in aditya hrydayam that Agastya tells Rama to realize himself. Rama learns Ravana could be killed if hit in a specific spot in the abdomen (the stomach).

No, I was not aware karma is non-vedic. Thank you for the information. I am not that learned... I did not know. But always wondered... how could the vedic people kill animals in the yagnas and talk about karma at the same time! Now I can see it! I always thought Zoroastrians were the 'asuras' since they worshipped Azura-Mazda though. !

For you specifically, made all those posts above, so it becomes clear that asuras are indians as well.

 

[palindrome]

Now Shri KRS has suggested the undernoted book where all these objections have been analyzed and answered, he says.

THE SEVEN GREAT UNTENABLES: SAPTA VIDHA ANUPAPATTI - A Critical Study
in Vedanta Dialectics. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, India, l990

I have yet to get this book. May be you can get it and find out for yourself.

Will surely try to read the book sir.

This material universe exists for us only during our life time. ...
[...]
This universe "is real" only as long as we can experience it through our physical body and the sense organs.

Matter and energy are interchangeable and it is the total energy in the universe which is conserved. But this unchanging existence itself depends upon our sense organs and is illusory due to that reason, imo.

The material universe exists whether we exist or not. Once upon a time humans did not exist on earth, dinosaurs did. No one can say what life form will prevail in future; depending on the ravages of nature. Matter and energy will exist whether our sense organs exist or not. Limiting the universe to something illusory; to limit universe itself to dependence on human cognition or to human emancipation (also in terms of liberation), is a disservice to the existence of the universe, imo.

As you are aware sir, Shankara believed in a creator. The origin of universe is described with the role of prakriti (nature) (aka maya). The jagat is existent on this belief within advaita. Now if we were to describe a creator, who would it be, or how would it be. We are many days in future since the time of our philosophers and are looking for life forms in other planets. There is also a great deal of research into particles. Would the human creator also be responsible for life forms and various particles within this and across the universes? Does the creator have to be human?

Sir, very honestly I do not know if a creator exists. I use the term "i do not know", meaning i am ignorant or i am agnostic. I believe most divinities we worship today in various religions are venerated because they understood knowledge of life and possibly, of death also, and thus were steps ahead of other humans. There were also gurus who took jeeva samadhi. A huge divergence from the law of nature which is innate with the struggle to exist. To think of them as creators of the universe, including creators of evil, would be a huge disservice to them, imo.

The devas seek to be compensated with gifts, sacrifices, and are material. Their worship leads one on the path of desire and attachment, whether it be forgiveness from sins or desire for something (including desire for moksha). All brahmanical sacrifices promise something in return whether it be material or spiritual; they creates the desire to be. Perhaps this is the path of so-called untruth.

If at all it is possible to reconcile devas (or asuras who were elevated as devas in puranas), with our form of worship, we cud put it this way -- instead of endeavoring to become like Krishna (of Bhagavad Gita), with a self-absorbed conscious, we limit ourselves to worshiping Krishna and ask him for material needs thus increasing bondage, attachment and vasanas in us. With reverence (shown in the form of offering worship), we should also endeavor to tread the path shown by him. Maybe this will be the Frashokereti where man becomes responsible for his own soul without divine intervention.

If reality is God, or, of our own manifestation, or of man's nature; then we could say the term God Bless means 'may the reality of karmic nature be blessed towards you (or kind to you)' (at least this is what am beginning to mean whenever i say God Bless, hoping better karma prevails for the current reality, from the whole backlog of sanchita).

All thoughts including thoughts leading to Brahman are all illusory, again, because the mind which conjures up the thoughts itself is impermanent and perishable. What it produces (thoughts) also is therefore perishable and hence illusory.

If thoughts leading to brahman are illusory, then how can brahman be realized? Would it mean brahman itself is illusory? If thoughts are illusory, so is karma, due to which are thoughts are supposed to originate.

I am omitting the portions in bold & blue since you yourself admit these are your views.

I humbly submit to you sir, but i believe there is room for other views, though they may or may not corroborate advaita partly or wholly.

I like to consider that there is a field which causes "Life". This is the Brahman and is the only reality. When this life manifests as a human being inside a human body, this human body with all its sense organs, limbs etc., perceives this jagat and gets the feeling that it is all for real. Take away the body, sense organs, limbs, etc., and we are left with only the field of "Life" which has no qualities, nirguna and the only reality. Though simple it explains advaita well enough.

If brahman causes life, then what is maya? Why would brahman seek for maya or prakriti to be superimposed on itself if it can create life by itself? To perceive the jagat depends on whom, brahman or maya / prakriti? Is it possible brahm is also illusion? (Some people in hindi wud say 'yeh apka brahm hai' meaning it is your imagination).

Imho sir, advaita's nirguna brahman would only describe an atman without a body, to say the atman is not perishable, and to propound that atman ceases its existence from the material world when it attains moksha, or a state of no rebirth or merger into divinity (here called brahman or going to brahmaloka).

Just my views sir.

 

[palindrome]

Thank you for your comments. Guru Shankara clearly stated that 'Maya', 'Avidya' and all such are the products of the mind, which is also part of Ishwara, which is Brahman. I think his proposition is misunderstood - he has never said that the material world we experience daily is 'unreal'. He was trying to explain why the material mind in a material body would not recognize that while they are perishable, they are part of the unperishable within them that infuses them. The 'I' ego, in my opinion creates this. Anyways, to me, this is all logical and neat.

Thankyou sir. In that case, would the "I" ego be an illusion or maya? The question deeply remains, why would brahman produce an illusion as part of it?

Regarding the 'Maya' concept having been borrowed from other traditions - it may very well be, but to me that does not diminish in any way the advaitha theory as enunciated by Guru Shankara.

Many traditions and many unknown or not so popular gurus explain(ed) maya and karma. I too am of opinion nothing can be diminished for everything adds to the path of knowledge.

 

[palindrome]

Hi Renuka, Lord Buddha's teaching does not stand in isolation to our religion. Buddhism & Jainism originate from our Vedic religion. The 23rd Thirthankara is Buddha, so both these are the same religion. The followers of Lord Buddha & Mahaveer have defined this as separate religion, but they are founded in our Vedic/Upanishad... lineage. Cheers,

Buddhism and Jainism are derived from shramana traditions. They reject the vedas and have nothing to do with vedic. The upanishads borrowed a good deal from shramana beliefs instead. To call Buddhism and Jainism as hindu or vedic is a big disservice to the great masters of knowledge within their belief systems. Saying this not to you but in general -- it is better to respect them as they are, without the need to drag them into 'hindu' or 'vedic'.

 

[palindrome]

Yes..that I am certainly aware of.

But Lord Buddha has certainly done a good job for us mankind...He gave us the essence.

In fact when I read His teachings..I can't help thinking of this Subhashita:

Anantasastram bahu veditavyam
Svalpascha kalo bahavascha vighnah
Yat sarabhutam tadupasitavyam
Hamso yatha ksheeramivambumisram.

The Sastras are endless; there is much to be known;
time is short, obstacles are many;
that which is essence should be grasped,
just as the swan does in the case of milk mixed with water.

Hi Renu,

Am not sure if Buddha said those words. On internet am able to find only 7 sites quoting it. Such as this one. The quote is attributed to Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and his translation of Brahmasutra (probably Radhakrishnan was its author). The quote found here is mentioned with no author but as a "traditional" quote. Buddhist canon is in Pali. Am doubtful if the verse you quote can be ascribed to Buddha. Kindly check. I suppose you are conveying your own feelings when you read Buddha's teachings, right?

Thank you.

 

[ShivKC]

Sri. Sangom, Greetings.


I am not talking in the context of Adam & Eve. I am talking in the context of every individual. If the karma based rebirth is true, my own birth could be retraced…. Doesn’t matter how many thousands .. to life of bad karma but still there would be one stage where it was my first instance to be born where I did not have any bad karma at all. Well, how did that birth happen if I did not have any bad karma? That is an important question to meditate on when we talk about karma and rebirth. Kindly you may not refrain from that question, please
Sorry sir. I don’t think karma theory explains anything.
Cheers!

sh.ragy, karma, an universal definition would be JUSTICE.

in the abrahamic religions, they fixed it on Adam and his first sin as first karma. the punishments in terms of karmic rebirth are delivered there in terms of final judgments. in this theory, except humans, no other living being comes under the karmic club, and hence stops at adam.

in hinduism, rather in all eastern religions, the first karma is fixed on infinity. here, you need to go beyond adam, beyond apes, beyond unicellular organism.. may be you may have to go beyond molecules , atom, ions... You need to search for the infinity of the origin and fix the first karma.

one way, its seems more convincing, cos it support the evolution theory.

PS:Im not a frequent visitor now, not sure if I would catch up with the discussion.

 

[sangom]

Will surely try to read the book sir.


The material universe exists whether we exist or not. Once upon a time humans did not exist on earth, dinosaurs did. No one can say what life form will prevail in future; depending on the ravages of nature. Matter and energy will exist whether our sense organs exist or not. Limiting the universe to something illusory; to limit universe itself to dependence on human cognition or to human emancipation (also in terms of liberation), is a disservice to the existence of the universe, imo.

Palindrome,

The universe exists for all the human beings who are alive or are existing. Based on this axiom and the instrument of science (paleo-archaeology, carbon dating, etc.) humans have come to the conclusion that "Once upon a time humans did not exist on earth, dinosaurs did." This is, again, based on the perceptions (i.e., the inputs of the senses) of existing human beings which happen to be more or less identical, happily. Suppose one large enough group of humans are unable to see certain colours, unable to hear the normal human audio spectrum and so on, we will have a situation where any scientific conclusion on whether humans were absent on the face of the earth, whether dinosaurs roamed the earth, etc., would be disputed theories only. Don't you agree?

None of us knows for sure whether this human personality with its perceptional abilities of this universe, continues even after the death of the humans. (I have tried to present some arguments through some posts in this thread to support the idea that the mind, speech, prANa, AtmA, etc., possibly get disintegrated and dissolve into the Earth which merges ultimately with the heavens (suvaH). But since Shri KRS has viewed it as some kind of opinion-changing effort, I am not explaining those arguments again. But it is very close to the atheist perception that physical death means the end of everything concerned with that person (A big 'THE END').

Anyway, suppose the humans lose all their ability to "know" and "experience" this world/universe once they are dead, then for any person this world/universe will be just a memory and not "real", just as remembered dreams are. The "reality" of the dreams as also the memories about this world are arguable points but in both cases the items comprising the dream/memory will not be there nor reproducible. Hence, there is sufficient strength in characterizing them as "unreal".

As you are aware sir, Shankara believed in a creator. The origin of universe is described with the role of prakriti (nature) (aka maya). The jagat is existent on this belief within advaita. Now if we were to describe a creator, who would it be, or how would it be. We are many days in future since the time of our philosophers and are looking for life forms in other planets. There is also a great deal of research into particles. Would the human creator also be responsible for life forms and various particles within this and across the universes? Does the creator have to be human?

AFAI have understood advaita, Shankara allowed a Saguna Brahman (Iswara) because he was constrined to be within the strict confines of the sruti & smrti most of which belonged to the Poorva MeemAmsa ideology and stipulated a creator for anything created on the analogy of the mud pot and the potter (without the potter mud could not by itself transform into a pot, etc.) We are, as you rightly observe, "many days in future since the time of our philosophers" and it is possible today to talk about "space-time continuum"and similar concepts without asking questions about it creator.

Hence, we today, can imagine a "Life continuum" which is the cause of all living forms in this universe; the fundamental particles have now gone, in the ultimate analysis to "strings" and "superstrings" and so on, and it is just a matter of time, imo, before science proclaims that there is nothing but the "feeling" or "imagination" of the human mind which goes to make up inanimate matter! The Creator, therefore, does not have to be, period.

to be continued please. ...

 

[Sastri]

If "COMPLICATEDISM" is an issue what is the resolution?

If "COMPLICATEDISM" is a progress, what did the human race benefit from it?