Dear Sri KRS!
I first saw your reply on my email apparently the forum directs this to my inbox - where you have stated on your respect, value to Shastra - How ? that "Shastra" needs to cater your present day needs and if not you will not hesitate to throw that out. I'm speechless at your remarks.
I did not make up the statement - Swami Vivekananda said these:
"Personally I take as much of the Vedas as agrees with reason. Parts of the Vedas are apparently contradictory. They are not considered as inspired in the Western sense of the word, but as the sum tote of the knowledge of God, omniscience. This knowledge comes out at the beginning of a cycle and manifests itself; and when the cycle ends, it goes down into minute form. When the cycle is projected again, that knowledge is projected again with it. So far the theory is all right. But that only these books which are called the Vedas are His knowledge is mere sophistry. Manu says in one place that that part of the Vedas which agrees with reason is the Vedas and nothing else. Many of our philosophers have taken this view."
and this:
"Of all the scriptures of the world it is the Vedas alone that declare that even the study of the Vedas is secondary. The real study is "that by which we realise the Unchangeable". And that is neither reading, nor believing, nor reasoning, but superconscious perception, or Samâdhi."
and this:
"How many in our country truly understand the Shastras nowadays? They have only learnt such words as Brahman, Maya, Prakriti, and so on, and confuse their heads with them. Setting aside the real meaning and purpose of the Shastras, they fight over the words only. If the Shastras cannot help all men in all conditions at all times, of what use, then, are such Shastras? If the Shastras show the way to the Sannyasins only and not to the householders, then what need has a householder for such one-sided Shastras? If the Shastras can only help men when they give up all work and retire into the forests, and cannot show the way of lighting the lamp of hope in the hearts of men of the workaday world — in the midst of their daily toil, disease, misery, and poverty, in the despondency of the penitent, in the self-reproach of the downtrodden, in the terror of the battlefield, in lust, anger and pleasure, in the joy of victory, in the darkness of defeat, and finally, in the dreaded night of death — then weak humanity has no need of such Shastras, and such Shastras will be no Shastras at all!"
It is a well established dictum to consider Srutis as divine. The Dharma Shastras are Smritis, and it is also an established dictum that the are not from what were 'heard', but rather derivatives of the Srutis. Take Manu Smriti, for example. Scholors now generally agree that this Smriti has been changed and/or appended to continuosly till Adi Shankara's time, by different authors who all called themselves 'Manu'. Half of the slokas are said to be not 'authentic'. There are a few that are contradictory. Same holds true more or less for other dharma shastras. So, when Smritis like this one, which was intended to be constantly updated according to time and culture, can not said to be God's creation, but rather man's creation. Just because these were 'remembered' in Sanskrit, does not mean the they are God given.
When I read your reply in the postings somehow I've missed this words, so I used the words "un-edited reply" - Oops my mistake. I've no intention to harm you. It is good that you brought it out. My apologies
Apology accepted.
It is not that I couldnt reply to your questions, with this sort of devotion to Shastra it is not worth replying anything to you.
Again, I consider the Srutis as divine and God given, but consider the Smritis as 'how to live' literature that are open to be updated according to the times. So, in my terminology, I seperate Srutis and Smritis and when I say 'Shastra' it is the Smritis I refer to, and while I accept the validity of the most of them, some which I consider to have been tampered with, I do not see them as valid for today's life.
You have great respects to other cults and religion , I admire that.
I do not have any respects for any cults (I am using the negative meaning for the word). I admire my own religion first. And my religion tells me to respect other valid religions.
We see "Shastras" with reverence and devotion. The Veda Mantras are nothing but "Ishvara" himself. That is how we see. For us Bhakthi means to follow the Shastra. Please be aware of this sensitivities. But if you choose not to respect it, I can't do anything about it . So it is my sincere request that you please respect our sensitivities.
I would never dream of questioning the Veda Mantras' divine origin.
Regards the "devoid of humanity" comments - Why you said this? - I've trampled upon what sentiments? How did you precieved it as insensitive ? Please enlighten me.
Respect from humanity comes from empathy and grace. There are extreme circumstances in real life that must be accommodated by any religion. To deny a decent funeral to a person, just because he had no male progeny is just flat out wrong. To suggest that such a person should have adopted a boy just to do the last rights, to me, is devoid of humanity.
Regards
malgova.mango