Dear Sangom Sir,
I have a lot of respect for your erudition. I write this only as a counter to your observation about Vivaaha mantras, kavacham literature and Thiruppukazh in this thread. I have criticised only the ideas after toning down the language as far as possible. I have absolutely no intention to hurt any one.
Dear Shri Raju,
Thank you for your kind words. Let me state, at the very outset, that I do not view "religion" in the same way as perhaps Shri Saidevo, Shri KRS, yourself and many others do; and I am aware that when it comes to finer details about the religious "rights & wrongs" there could be sharp differences among you people also. I feel much of what is there in the Hinduism of today is actually a stain on the religion itself and I found that in this forum discussions were going on in May 2010 about puruṣasūktam, which gave me the impression that my pov on hinduism may be permitted here. That is the reason why I started participating and am still continuing. It is my feeling that tabras have almost completely lost their knowledge of the meaning of their mantras, scriptures, etc., because of their steady alienation from sanskrit. They pretend to be very religious if certain superficial recitations, rites, etc., are done and a façade is put that one is a great "'āstika". Many things are omitted, changed according to convenience, etc., but these are not "conscious reforms" but "ignorant steps for pure convenience". My desire is that tabras get to know more and more about what exactly our scriptures and other religious texts actually say and make them more aware, so that instead of just blindly following what the conformist orthodoxy, which hates any rational questioning, tells them.
It is quite possible that my views have become uncomfortable to some. I consider such a tendency to be either nascent fanaticism, or else a "reaction" inasmuch as it is felt by some people that any non-conformist view should be challenged as a part of one's real religious duty. So long as such challenge is based on logic, it is welcome.
But let me tell here that, at least in this thread I did not start with any "criticism" of our mantras/religious practices. Smt. Renuka Kartikeyan (RK) in post # 3 stated as under:
"As far as I know in Non Brahmin weddings priest recites the mantra( I remember priest reciting at my wedding and i joked with husband saying priest "married" the bride.hehehheh)..I am not familiar with Brahmin Weddings..does the groom recite this mantra or does the priest recite it..feedback please ..would like to know.."
I replied (post # 6) inter alia that there are more explicit mantras in a brahman marriage and added
"This and some other explicit “mantras” are also there. The priest utters these, but the groom may blissfully play the role of silent observer. So, it is for the Brahman unmarried boys to decide what each one should do."
This was in support of RK's suggestion that there should be a one-week training course for boys before the marriage so that they know the purport of the mantras and recite appropriately. Thus far everything was OK (at least I feel so because there was no response from you in the same tone as the present one.). Then Shri Saidevo in post #28 wanted my specific comments on the points raised therein. In that one of his views was as follows:
"I think the explicit nuptial mantras in the vivAha ceremony could be understood in such contexts as above. It seems to me that the explicit references to the genital parts of the couple and the seeking of devAnugraha for their conjugal acts are like the kavacha mantras. Just as we chant the lines in a hymn like the skanda ShaShTi kavacham that refer to body parts, blissfully and without ignorance, it is possible to read between and behind the lines of the vivAha mantras that are explicit. "
I do not agree that such explicit mantras/kavacams etc., have to be accepted because these are being blindly accepted by one section of the people who are more likely to be ignorant. That way the practice of "Satee" was also endorsed at one time by a large number of people; was it not given up as undesirable? Animal sacrifices were the norm in vedic yagas even till 1950’s or so. Has it not been stopped now? The kavacams seek protection from certain deity, as you say, but there has to be some basic logic even in regard to that. In some of our rites (apara karma, for example) the mantras have to be changed according to the gender of the deceased person; our rishis obviously did not say that we may jolly well recite whatever we wanted if only there is the ability to recite them "blissfully and without ignorance". Whereas at every step the examples set by our ancient rishis and the rules laid down by them are extolled by the religious-minded, when it comes to such blind practices like reciting the KSK, it is not even felt necessary to say that males should chant like this while females should chant the alternative lines. This is exactly what I recommend to believers, though personally I don't chant it, being myself an agnostic.
I find that there is a common thread of sarcasm and a lot of jeering and sneering in your posts about the Vivaha mantras as well as the kavachams and Thiruppukazh. While any one would admit that the rituals have undergone a lot of changes due to various strong reasons like economy, time and logistics there is no justification to be so dismissive and frivolous about the purport of the mantras or to be so critical about the kavachams and Thiruppukazh.
This is your perception for which I don't think I have to reply. I did not write with any such intention.
Our elders who belonged to another time, were completely free with expression of matters pertaining to physiology and sex. The vast collection of literature in Tamil and Sanskrit adequately stand as testimony to this fact. Luckily they had not gone through the Victorian prudish outlook and mores which was just unnatural and alien to the native culture. They were not ashamed of their physiological assets and had no qualms whatsoever about speaking about them in their literature-with beautiful imageries as well as in stark direct terms. They considered them as part of existence and hence boldly carved them in immortal granite statues and murals of temples. They considered procreation itself as a yajna done for the welfare of the humanity. Hence they have written about procreation in very great details (including physiological aspects of it) unabashedly.
I do not agree, unless you include the kings and rulers and the poets who caused such "beautiful imageries in literature and carvings" also as our vedic law-givers. On the contrary you will find that the brahmanical teachings did not envisage the teaching of Vatsyayana's Kamasutra or its predecessors Gonikaputra and others, nor do any of our mutts teach any of these texts; on the contrary a student is supposed to be a very strict brahmcacārī and so it is doubtful if our ṛṣis were not prudish.
On the contrary the "sthapati" who at an early time enjoyed a higher caste status got demoted over time to "sudra"; may be the brahmanic mind did not accept the "beautiful imageries" which you refer to and their actual sculptors. Any "sthapati" who is detailed for sculpting an idol for installation in a temple, has to first observe 41 days' vratam and observe strict continence and live around the sculpting area only - away from his family. So I do not think the mindset of medieval brahmans was very lenient to overt portrayal of sringaara rasa.
Can you tell me where, in the mantra parts of our scriptures, our ancients "have written about procreation in very great details (including physiological aspects of it) unabashedly"? I will like to learn.
In their higher search for God and Truth they considered all distractions as impediments and this included excess indulgence. While speaking about their search if they have spoken in detail about the impediments what is wrong with it?
May I know the basis for your above observation? And in what way has the "impediments" spoken of in detail in the
mantras, I presume, helped in the search for god/truth?
For some of us who are used to the Victorian mores these may look or sound like indulgence. If it appears so to you the problem lies elsewhere.
You have also said “I am, somehow, reminded of the "indulgences" in medieval catholic christianity”.
You said it! You are sure aware of what followed in the Victorian period. Even normal indulgences were pushed to the privacy and anonimity of darkness in the night and all beauty was carefully pushed behind thick purdah. Our ancestors had a better vision for us.
Shri Raju, I feel you are indulging in giving different shapes to "indulgence", the word itself. It means "inability to resist the gratification of whims and desires, excessive gratification, etc." So, how can there be "normal indulgence" vis-a-vis abnormal indulgence? Indulgence itself is considered bad as per later hindu beliefs, though the vedic vivāha mantras iclude this one also:
imām tvamindra mīdhvassuputrām subhagām kuru | daśāsyām putrān adhehi patim ekādaśam kṛdhi || (O indra, thou art bountiful. Make this girl have good children and prosperity. Bestow on her ten good children and make the husband the eleventh.) It also prays "aśūnyopasthā jīvatāmastu mātā" (May she ever have children on her lap.) It is thus clear that the vedic ṛṣis did not at all consider that sex was an obstruction to their way of life.
"indulgences" in medieval catholic christianity has nothing to do with what you probably think. I give just some relevant paras from
Is the catholic church selling indulgences for money? - Yahoo! Answers
"In the late thirteenth century, the church came up with the idea of indulgences. In the spiritual life of sinners, indulgences function exactly the same way money functions in their economic life. Here's the logic: since the expiation of sin involves temporal punishment and this temporal punishment involves the doing of good works, why not substitute someone else's good works for the good works you're required to do? Why not pay someone else to do the good works demanded of you as temporal punishment?
Church officials argued that clergy were doing more good works then they needed to; they had, you might say, more than good works in their spiritual accounts than they had sins to pay for. Why not sell them? So selling the good works of the church was precisely what the church did. With the approval of the pope, individual bishops could sell indulgences which more or less paid off any temporal punishment or good works that the individual believer (
had to do as expiation therefore) had accumulated in the previous year. It substituted the good works of the Catholic clergy for the good works required of the individual believer. Proof of this substitution was in the indulgence itself, which was a piece of paper, like a piece of money or a check, that certified that the good works of the clergy had paid off the "good works debt" of the individual believer.
Inspired by the need to raise money, indulgences reproduced the very logic of money. In place of the real thing (good works), indulgences substituted a completely valueless piece of paper. The only reason this worked is because everybody accepted this to be a valid substitution, just like everybody accepts money as a substitution for things that have value."
These “tickets” to heaven marked the nadir of the Catholic religion and I said I am reminded of a similar state of affairs in Hinduism now.
To me as well as to any believer who reads them, it appears the kavacham literature is an appeal to the ishta deivam(personal godhead/devatha) to protect the individual’s body from attack and harm and in making that appeal the bard has done a very detailed and thorough job. What is your objection? What is so ‘ludicrous’ about it? What the poet has written about is only what exists there. He has not added anything funny or obscene there. Or is it your case that human being is a funny looking obscene creature? A human being, whether man or woman, need not be ashamed about its genitals and need not be furtive, secretive or defensive when speaking about it. The problem is with the mindset-the mind that reads it and interprets it in a particular way because of the wrong perception or the lack of perception, accumulated prejudices, and the wrong classification of what is serene and what is obscene –acquired from external sources by education.
I have already given my comments citing our apara kriya mantras as an example and the need for specifying the versions to be chanted by the 'karta' for departed males and females. While I find the mindset behind these ‘kavacas’ really ludicrous, especially when viewed aide by side of grandiose claims like “aham brahmaasmi”, everything is Brahman, this world is unreal, Vishnu is the only god and all that, why at all go on requesting different deities (or different aspects of the same deity) to protect or be stationed – as in some kavacas – in different parts of the body. To me this reeks of non-belief in the advaita or real bhakti which is supposed to be the two main lines in Hinduism currently. Kavacas, being tantric in origin, are in truth, unacceptable to vedic Hinduism IMHO. (I include Sivakavacam also in this category, but it is much better composed, of course.)
The Thiruppukazh that you have quoted is explicit about the kind of spell that Arunagirinathar was under. This is nothing when compared to some of the more explicit poetry in Bhakthi as well as Sangam Literature. Thiruppukazh is a religious text and the poet can only go against the impediments to God-realization. I doubt whether the poet has ever said anywhere that the women of easy virtue are responsible for ‘all’ evils in this world. The poet’s argument is against the indulgence in sensual pleasures and in that context he explains how he was caught in the web of a woman of easy virtue. Your sympathy for the women is at a different level and has no relevance to the subject in focus.
IMO, Arunagiri as a real “sinner-turned-Saint” should not have written as if the prostitutes are the major cause of all evils - this he repeats in many thiruppukazhs - and blaming those women squarely as though they did not allow him to lead his brahmanic way of life and help his sister; as if these women barged into his house, dragged him by his hands and compelled him to engage with them. I find this unbecoming of even an ordinary fellow who might turn a new leaf in his life, much more so in the case of one who is supposed to be a saint. Even the example of tiruppukazh I have cited, reveals a mind actively lingering on the very minute details of whatever his experience of prostitutes were. And considering the hagiography of Arunagirinathar that all thiruppukazhs were composed while standing before the sanctum sanctorum of some Murugan temple, I definitely view these as not good examples of a mind which was refined, but one which was incapable of the tendency to continue dwelling on the very things he likes to detail. If Valmiki had, in the same way, interspersed his Ramayana, with detailed acounts of the sinful ways of his past life, what would have been the result? I am told that even among the Vaishnava alwars there was one reformed robber; did he write in a similar vein? I therefore am of the confirmed view that despite the rhythmic beauty of thiruppukazhs, these rank low as devotionals. The very fact that many such explicit thiruppukazhs are not sung publicly only goes to prove that the public at large holds prudish views, despite whatever you or Saidevo try to establish here.
You have said “The sad part is that our religious belief system has gone down to its nadir, that any constructive, logical criticism is being viewed as bad and unholy”.
Logical criticism can not fly of the handle. It has to be firmly tied to the present and subject in hand. Interpreting ancient literature and religious works with a dictionary in hand is not logical criticism. The overall context is important. An understanding of the circumstances is also essential. And in what way is this criticism constructive? Criticism is always welcome. It is the only way to acquire knowledge and move forward. But this is something else. The believers are not so scared of reasoned criticism. They can take it in their stride and move.
I am very much logical and "firmly tied to the present” and the subject under discussion. That is why I am strongly arguing for changes to the ancient religious works in accordance with the norms of the present times. (I have already cited examples such as Satee, animal sacrifices, etc.). This criticism is constructive because it suggests changes.
I suppose you consider yourself to be a "believer". If so your "toned down criticism" itself is evidence that believers get unsettled by criticism and cannot just "take it in their stride and move".
Last but not least I reproduce a few extracts from the book "Indu matam enge pokiratu" by Agnihotram Ramanuja Thathachariar.
"[FONT="]சரி[/FONT][FONT="], திருமணத்தில் வாத்யார்கள் ஓதும் முரண்பாடான மந்த்ரங்களுக்கு மேலும் உதாரணம் சொல்கிறேன் என [/FONT][FONT="]போ[/FONT][FONT="]ன அத்யாயத்தில் சொல்லியிருந்தேனல்லவா[/FONT]
[FONT="]அத்தகைய ஒரு மந்த்ரத்தைப் பாருங்கள்[/FONT]
[FONT="]"[/FONT]
தாம்பூஷஞ்சிவதமாமேரயஸ்வ
யஸ்யாம்பீஜம்மநுஷ்யாவபந்தி[FONT="] |[/FONT]
யாநஊரூஉசதீவிச்ரயாதே
யஸ்யாம்உஷ்ந்தஃப்ரஹராமசேபம்[FONT="] ||"[/FONT]
[FONT="]இது வேதத்தில் சொல்லப்பட்ட மந்த்ரம். இதை கல்யாண மேடையிலே பெண்ணையும் மாப்பிள்ளையையும் உட்கார்த்திவைத்து சத்தமாக சொல்கிறார் வாத்யார். இந்த மந்த்ரத்தின் அர்த்தம் புரிந்தால் ... அந்த வாத்யாரை நீங்கள் வாத்சாயனர் என்று தான் அழைப்பீர்கள்.[/FONT]
[FONT="]... இதை ஏன் சொல்கிறேன் என்றால் ...வாத்யார்கள் சடங்குகள் என்ற பெயரில் என்ன அர்த்தம் என்றே தெரியாமல் ... பல மந்த்ரங்களை உச்சரித்து வருகிறார்கள் என்பதை சுட்டிக் காட்டத்தான்.[/FONT]
[FONT="]இதுபோல் இன்னொரு மந்த்ரம்.[/FONT]
[FONT="]"விஷ்ணுர் யோனிம் கல்ப்பயது[/FONT]
[FONT="]த்வஷ்டா ரூபாணி பிக்ம்சது[/FONT]
[FONT="]ஆஸிஞது ப்ரஜாபதிஃ[/FONT]
[FONT="]தாதா கர்ப்பம் ததாது தே..."[/FONT]
[FONT="]இதன் அர்த்தம் ... இன்னும் ஆபாசம் !...[/FONT]
I am not giving the meaning here because I do not want yet another round of the same exercise.