Theory of Karma

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

The Vedas were compiled much later. Veda Vyasa is believed to be the compiler of all the Vedas including Atharva Veda.

Now

What was the time of the Vedas? Though the date of the Vedas have been established there are many dates propounded. The Indian historians date it around 3500 B.C but the more generally accepted date is 1500 to 2500 B.C. They were written over a couple of thousand years at least. The Atharva Veda is the latest.

Naturally the environment must have undergone dramatic change during this period. The thinking of the sages must have undergone a change. The Upanishads are an example.

Then we have to deal with countless interpolations.

The next question is when were the Vedas compiled? And why they were compiled into four parts? Some research has been done about the division. But the time period of the compilation is not known. No research is attempted because the time factor is a delicate and controversial issue.

The earliest surviving Veda manuscript is only from the 11th Century.

Again we do not know when the Dharmasasthras were written.

We have no reliable information about Vedic times, how they lived and about their society.

Without knowing all this what we have is theories. What you are propounding is only a theory. A theory the purpose of which was to divide the Hindu society. Again you say there were no Varnas during the Vedic times. But there are people who quote Purushasuktha and Varna krama pathas to argue otherwise.

So what you and me and everyone has is only theories.

 

[renuka]

Dear Shiv,

You wrote:

atheism has no UNIVERSAL answers for the mankind.

But the irony is Atheist feel they have all the questions for mankind.

 

[sangom]

Also, your claim that Atharva Veda and Agamas were written by 'Brahmins' is watery. The discussion about Atharva was in full swing during the time you were absent (between saidevo, myself, nara sir, sangom sir, and few others). If you are keen, you cud start a new thread on it.

Smt. HappyHindu,

I had read some years ago that atharva veda comes from the zoroastrian "atharva" or fire priest and that possibly an immigration of zoroastrians much later than the original rigvedic batch of people did happen. The beliefs and prayers of this later group is what is believed to be the atharva veda, which was initially anathema to the then vedists who reckoned the "trayee vedaah", but in the course of time this atharva came to be accepted and also incorporated into the yaagaa system, with the "Brahman" priest being required to know atharva veda, or being an atharva vedi.

I don't recollect where I read these. May be you have some info on these lines already.

 

[Yamaka]

Dear Shiv,

You wrote:


But the irony is Atheist feel they have all the questions for mankind.

Hi Renuka and Shiv:

What all we say is don't use your "moral" argument in favor of Religions (and by implication against Atheists). If you do, then I may argue the following -

Religious people, in particular those who do prayers, poojas and bhajans regularly, are MORALLY WEAK by design -

They commit immorality regularly with ease and smile because by doing prayers, poojas and bhajans they believe their Gods will pardon them, hence they have a standing licence to commit debauchery (to use Shiv's word)!

Thus immorality by these people grows unhindered every day in the world!

Whereas, Atheists go by their "inner call" to guide them away from immorality and intemperance...

Take it easy.

 

[Nara]

...Also, your claim that Atharva Veda and Agamas were written by 'Brahmins' is watery. .

Happy, I find your theory on Atharvana Veda quite persuasive. My experience is limited to SV circles, and in it, Atharvana Veda is viewed with trepidation, associated with the occult.

Until about 10 years ago, the regular Veda parayanam used to be the other three, Atharvana was not included. About ten years ago two young men from Andhra came to chant Atharvana Veda in the Matam for the first time. It was a sort of curiosity. From then on, these men came down for every recitation. All the chanters got handsome dhakshinai + train fare.

There is definitely something different about Atharvana veda that makes it stand apart from the other three.

Cheers!

 

[ShivKC]

<removed>
one does not have to have a PHD or a Masters to participate and put forward views. These days most are available online and thus constantly questioning ones credentials is totally uncalled for and if that is a problem then i suggest that you withdraw from the discussions instead of constantly hounding members

 

[nachi naga]

Since the omniscient Gedun Gyatso was recognized and confirmed as the reincarnation of Gedun Drub in the fifteenth century and the Gaden Phodrang Labrang (the Dalai Lama’s institution) was established, successive reincarnations have been recognized. The third in the line, Sonam Gyatso, was given the title of the Dalai Lama. The Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso, established the Gaden Phodrang Government in 1642, becoming the spiritual and political head of Tibet. For more than 600 years since Gedun Drub, a series of unmistaken reincarnations has been recognised in the lineage of the Dalai Lama.

http://dalailama.com/messages/tibet/reincarnation-statement

reincarnation as in buddhism...

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nachi.

This is an excellent point. The concept of their guru reincarnating in Tibetan Buddhism is an attractive point. While in Hindu Dharma a guru passes his accomplishments through a guru parampara, in their Dharma the guru himself reincarnates and teaches his elder and the new younger disciples.

I saw a film titled 'The Unmistaken Child', which is an excellent documentary about the reincarnation of the Tibetan Lama Geshe Lama Konchog. One can never forget the beautiful scenes of that film.
Unmistaken Child - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Incarnation of Geshe Lama Konchog

 

[happyhindu]

The Vedas were compiled much later. Veda Vyasa is believed to be the compiler of all the Vedas including Atharva Veda.

Now

What was the time of the Vedas? Though the date of the Vedas have been established there are many dates propounded. The Indian historians date it around 3500 B.C but the more generally accepted date is 1500 to 2500 B.C. They were written over a couple of thousand years at least. The Atharva Veda is the latest.

Naturally the environment must have undergone dramatic change during this period. The thinking of the sages must have undergone a change. The Upanishads are an example.

Then we have to deal with countless interpolations.

The next question is when were the Vedas compiled? And why they were compiled into four parts? Some research has been done about the division. But the time period of the compilation is not known. No research is attempted because the time factor is a delicate and controversial issue.

The earliest surviving Veda manuscript is only from the 11th Century.

Again we do not know when the Dharmasasthras were written.

We have no reliable information about Vedic times, how they lived and about their society.

Without knowing all this what we have is theories. What you are propounding is only a theory. A theory the purpose of which was to divide the Hindu society. Again you say there were no Varnas during the Vedic times. But there are people who quote Purushasuktha and Varna krama pathas to argue otherwise.

So what you and me and everyone has is only theories.

The idea that Veda Vyasa was compiler of Vedas is subject to debate. From historical pov, there is no such evidence. Because vedanta texts did not even exist during the time of Veda Vyasa. This was also discussed in this forum. The time period of Dharmashastras are pretty well documented from historical and inscriptional evidence by PV Kane, Bhandarkar and other historians. Ofcourse as new evidence comes up, time periods may vary here and there by a couple of centuries or so. It is ridiculous for anyone to allege that these historians did their exploration to divide the hindu society.

I kindly request you to discuss the points in questions instead of involving in personal allegations.

 

[happyhindu]

Happy, I find your theory on Atharvana Veda quite persuasive. My experience is limited to SV circles, and in it, Atharvana Veda is viewed with trepidation, associated with the occult.

Until about 10 years ago, the regular Veda parayanam used to be the other three, Atharvana was not included. About ten years ago two young men from Andhra came to chant Atharvana Veda in the Matam for the first time. It was a sort of curiosity. From then on, these men came down for every recitation. All the chanters got handsome dhakshinai + train fare.

There is definitely something different about Atharvana veda that makes it stand apart from the other three.

Cheers!

Dear Sir,

Generally some telugu NBs have the belief that Narasimha Swamy varu is an "asura devudu" who taught the Atharva Veda. Of all Vedas, am told the Atharva is held in highest reverence amongst them (ofcourse they do not disregard the other 3 vedas, just that they consider the atharva the most orthodox of them all). I remain in awe of the atharva spells which are very similar in approach with those of the kapuralas of srilanka.

Here the term "Asura devudu" for Narasimha Swamy is evoked with respect and fear. There is no negativity involved. Maybe this is similar to Indra, Agni, etc being called Asura (the powerful one) in the other Vedas (with a positive connotation).

According to some known people, Narasimha Swamy temples were given the offering of Soma (this is only a folk memory though and there is no evidence). Later these offerings were changed to Panakam. But no one knows how the Soma was made. Some elderly ones feel it was plain toddy fermented and mixed with honey obtained from jungles (but prepared by priests as a secret recipe).

Then again, this 'soma' offering was not considered something negative (i tend to compare this with the trayi-veda tradition where indra and other gods were given soma and it did not carry a negative connotation either).

The offerings were given to placate the one who killed an "asura" and protected an "asura shishu" (obviously a reference to Hiranyakashipua and Prahalada). So here Narasimha swamy, Hiranyakashipu and Prahalada all of them are considered asuras and associated with Atharva. This is different from the puranic concept where only Prahalada, Hiranyakshipu are asuras and Narasimha Swamy is (absorbed into mainstream hinduism?) as a Deva.

Amongst the present day tribes, the Chenchus worship Narasimha Swamy (they beleive they gave their daughter in marriage to Narasimha Swamy - i hear there was a movie made out of the story called Chenchu Lakshmi or something like that).

The Gadaba tribe gets interesting. They have Shanku devudu and Konda devudu. The fascinating part is that images of Varaha swamy in some temples has only Shanku and no Chakram. The Gadabas invoke Sanku devudu for rain with sacrifices of hens or cocks (here one can say sanku devudu is analogous to indra who was also invoked for rain). In Gadaba concept, konda devudu is similar to sanku devudu and lives in the mountains.

It is very difficult to date since when these tribal gods and practices have existed. Most of these are austroasiatic (mundari) speakers mixed with dravidian (telugu) speakers.

Which is why i keep having the doubt -- if vishwamitra's sons were andhras, would it mean vishwamitra was a dravidian speaker who fought for a brahmana position with IE speakers? Or wud it mean the Vishwamitra-andhras were IE speakers who colonised the south which was already occupied by earlier jungle dwellers (like the vanaras ?). Would this mean the Vanaras were austroasiatic? Confounding this scenario is the puranic and itihaasic concept that Vanaras were descendents of the vedic-Indra.

Undoubtedly there are links of the Atharva with the Zoarashtrian Athravan. But then the Elamo-dravidian linguistic connection has been refuted by some linguists. I suppose we just have to wait for more linguistic evidence linking the Avestan, Dravidian, Indo-European (tocharian?), and Austroasiatic groups. Maybe some nostratic group...perhaps...

Perhaps the atharva was an independent tradition but was invariably linked to 3 different religions with divergent concepts -- (1) zoarashtrianism where devas are evil, (2) brahmanical sacrifices where devas are divine, (3) jainism where devas cannot help in liberation.

Regards.

 

[subbudu1]

while claiming that the religion is corrupting the moral code, one should also look in to dilemma of that problem of, how to judge who is morally corrupt and who is not?

is there any einstenian formula in advance science to have a thermometric measure of 'morals & ethics'? i am yet to see a journal which can quantify a person or society in moral grades in a scale of 1-10? why science couldn't yet be able to define scales for morality & scales? atheists who claim in precise quantification, could give an attempt here. i know they cant, unless they root their scales in line with religious morality. without god, we can't root morality, rather, with atheism, every society can have their chosen morality.

who in the world is going to set the guidelines for this?

if its more than enough, that living in accordance with the law is perfectly all right, then one should also not be comparing Ambani's with bill gates alturism .

a dilemma here.

what is moral is an universal question, which i think ,atheism has no UNIVERSAL answers for the mankind. if not atheists, should not be complaining about Ambanis.

You seem to think there is only one set of things which are morally right.Why am I reminded of christianity?

 

[ShivKC]

You seem to think there is only one set of things which are morally right.Why am I reminded of christianity?

Tell me which religion in this world which doesn't tag killing/rape/stealing/cheating as wrong?

Is there any universal rule under atheism, to collectively universally/globally to claim them as wrong?

is there any religion in this world, which dont condemn the wrong acts done behind screen? which religion doesnt talk about life after death?

atheism has no answers here , right!

 

[ShivKC]

<once again i am editing this post. As i have said before,i do not have the time to play a game of "he said this, she said that, he did this and i did this....". If that is what you want me to play, i am not the guy you should be playing with simply because i do not play that game>. However you take it, this is the last post that i will edit of yours. Next one will on the same lines will result in an infraction and your account might be temporarily banned because your just one point away from an automatic ban.

 

[renuka]

Hi Renuka and Shiv:

What all we say is don't use your "moral" argument in favor of Religions (and by implication against Atheists). If you do, then I may argue the following -

Religious people, in particular those who do prayers, poojas and bhajans regularly, are MORALLY WEAK by design -

They commit immorality regularly with ease and smile because by doing prayers, poojas and bhajans they believe their Gods will pardon them, hence they have a standing licence to commit debauchery (to use Shiv's word)!

Thus immorality by these people grows unhindered every day in the world!

Whereas, Atheists go by their "inner call" to guide them away from immorality and intemperance...

Take it easy.

Dear Yamaka,

I never go around saying I am morally right..I can be my best and also my worst but I am brave enough to face the consequences of my actions even if it severely immoral.
At least I am brave enough to admit that I can be even bad or wrong and not sing praises about my own self that I am 100% morally right.

There are a 2 types of people in this world..One who are truly good and the other are good becos they never had a chance to be bad.

I prefer to be a free person and do as I please..so I am no saint.
Dont know why some here think that just becos I appear religious in forum..i must be an epitome of virtue..I could be the worst hypocrite around.

I do as I please.I am not a coward to do wrong but ask God to forgive me.
I never involve God in my actions.My actions are mine and I know I will reap what I sow and brave enough to face it.

A person who truly loves God will never ask God to even forgive his/her sins.
and will never expect anything from God.
I love God becos I love Him thats all.

Lots of Love
Renu


P.S Dear Yams,
I am no non Hindu to confess in a confession box and be forgiven by a human who says "God has forgiven you my child".
I am brave enough to say I am bad, I am wrong and so what!!!

 

[sravna]

The argument of science regarding survival of species is that it is the fittest who survive. In other words the natural qualities of the species should be such that it is able to survive in difficult environments. To take it to the logical extreme the really fittest would survive in any environment. This would lead to the conclusion that the external world in immaterial for the perfect species. Or the inner world is the true reality.

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

Origin of life from the primordial soup

Yamaka said in post #180:
There are very many theories in Science as to how the world came into existence and how we all evolved from the "soup" of nitrogenous compounds with help of energy from Sun.

To which I asked him in post #193:
So, how did the individual consciousness, which was absent at the molecular and atomic level, suddenly crop up at the cellular level? Even if you say that this is due to evolution, how did it happen when the first amoeba sprang into existence as a sentient being, from the primordial soup of nitrogenous compounds?

I brought up the issue again in post #290 and said:
The primordial soup theory of life is a belief because scientists have not been able to verify it experimentally: Primordial Soup Theory

It is in response to the above post that Yamaka has tried to dazzle and blind us, as I said above. Now, the real issue is this:

Assuming that (and this is only an assumption) complex life evolved from the first life to spring into existence on earth, which was like the one-celled amoeba, is it possible that the one-celled organism could have come into existence by the purely natural processes of matter, energy and time?

The rational answer is: No, it is not possible in both cases: the amoeba-like organism and the complex life forms that evolved from each other in succession.

The why and how of this answer is explained with consistent logic and amazingly simple language that anyone with just basic knowledge of science can understand here:
Searching for the Origin of life

This book is a must-read for us both: believers and non-believers. It would be interesting to know what our non-believers have got to say on the arguments furnished in the book.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Yamaka,

True peace is achieved by shunning than by seeking. If you do not perceive the need for something where is the question of losing your peace in not possessing it? On the other hand if you seek something your mind does not rest till you possess it. Even if you possess it, peace is lost if you lose it. This is true with respect to both tangible and intangible possessions.

Science teaches you to seek whereas religion teaches you to shun.

 

[sangom]

#342

The word "shun" means - Avoid and stay away from deliberately; stay clear of. Much emphasis has probably been given in Hindu religious texts for this mindset of "shunning" very many things - material as well as not material (nahi nahi rakshati Dukrinj karaNE, for example). But I think this has been one of the cardinal mistakes of Hindu thinking.

IMO, "shunning" will never lead a human being to "vairaagya" or non-attachment; on the contrary, trying to "shun" things for which the mind craves, will only give rise to fake vairaagya and thence to fraudulent sanyasis. Of course, in contemporary settings, this is perhaps not a problem; a person donning sanyasi's robes need to fake "vairaagya" only till he becomes popular and crosses the "break-even point", after which he/she can live in as much luxury as the mind desires and need not "shun" anything except perhaps the indulgences becoming embarrassingly public.

 

[sravna]

#342

The word "shun" means - Avoid and stay away from deliberately; stay clear of. Much emphasis has probably been given in Hindu religious texts for this mindset of "shunning" very many things - material as well as not material (nahi nahi rakshati Dukrinj karaNE, for example). But I think this has been one of the cardinal mistakes of Hindu thinking.

IMO, "shunning" will never lead a human being to "vairaagya" or non-attachment; on the contrary, trying to "shun" things for which the mind craves, will only give rise to fake vairaagya and thence to fraudulent sanyasis. Of course, in contemporary settings, this is perhaps not a problem; a person donning sanyasi's robes need to fake "vairaagya" only till he becomes popular and crosses the "break-even point", after which he/she can live in as much luxury as the mind desires and need not "shun" anything except perhaps the indulgences becoming embarrassingly public.

Look at the two options. If you seek you need the external world and your happiness or peace is not totally in your hands. On the contrary if you shun you could the sole master of your happiness and peace. The catch is, you could be the emperor of the universe but not so easily be the ruler of your senses and mind. However hard the objective might we need to at least move in that direction. Anything that dissuades that is doing a great disservice to humanity.

 

[sangom]

Look at the two options. If you seek you need the external world and your happiness or peace is not totally in your hands. On the contrary if you shun you could the sole master of your happiness and peace. The catch is, you could be the emperor of the universe but not so easily be the ruler of your senses and mind. However hard the objective might we need to at least move in that direction. Anything that dissuades that is doing a great disservice to humanity.

What I say is neither seek nor shun. This applies equally to the good and bad things in life. Accept both as they come. That may be the true path to non-attachment.

 

[sravna]

What I say is neither seek nor shun. This applies equally to the good and bad things in life. Accept both as they come. That may be the true path to non-attachment.

We agree that the objective is non-attachment. And I agree too with you when you say that we should accept things as they come. To automatically not being attached is the ideal. But I think the path to it starts with conscious effort which implies that you agree that non-attachment is the goal. The effort itself, I think would become more and more spontaneous as you proceed.

 

[renuka]

What I say is neither seek nor shun. This applies equally to the good and bad things in life. Accept both as they come. That may be the true path to non-attachment.

I agree with Sangom here..but its more for the advanced seeker who has Viveka full in function. For the advanced one nothing can snare him.
For the advanced he will be singing this waiting for his time to be liberated.

"Drusha dwichi thra thalpayor bhujanga moukthika srajo,
Garishta rathna loshtayo suhrudhwi paksha pakshayo,
Trunara vinda chakshusho praja mahee mahendrayo,
Samapravarthika kadha sadashivam bhajamyaham"

When will I adore Sadāśiva with an equal vision towards varied ways of the world, a snake or a pearl-garland, royal-gems or a lump of dirt, friend or enemy sides, a grass-eyed or a lotus-eyed person, and common men or the king


For the less advanced to a certain extent clear guidelines are needed to aid him to thread the correct path till he is ready to sing the above verse.

 

[C RAVI]

IMO, do your duty with all our commitment and compassion and still have balanced thoughts out of resultant happiness and sufferings.

Dharma can not be practiced without attachment and with attachment liberation can not be attained. The way in between is to never get into two opposite extreme spectrum of yearning more and more of happiness/accomplishment beyond the visible possibilities AND be extremely feeling for compensations and being remorseful of self life proceedings. The consciousness should be pure and should have the tendencies to accept the outcome.

Think good, do good and be justful with purity of consciousness for what you gain and what you lose.

 

[Yamaka]

namaste everyone.

Origin of life from the primordial soup

Yamaka said in post #180:
There are very many theories in Science as to how the world came into existence and how we all evolved from the "soup" of nitrogenous compounds with help of energy from Sun.

To which I asked him in post #193:
So, how did the individual consciousness, which was absent at the molecular and atomic level, suddenly crop up at the cellular level? Even if you say that this is due to evolution, how did it happen when the first amoeba sprang into existence as a sentient being, from the primordial soup of nitrogenous compounds?

I brought up the issue again in post #290 and said:
The primordial soup theory of life is a belief because scientists have not been able to verify it experimentally: Primordial Soup Theory

It is in response to the above post that Yamaka has tried to dazzle and blind us, as I said above. Now, the real issue is this:

Assuming that (and this is only an assumption) complex life evolved from the first life to spring into existence on earth, which was like the one-celled amoeba, is it possible that the one-celled organism could have come into existence by the purely natural processes of matter, energy and time?

The rational answer is: No, it is not possible in both cases: the amoeba-like organism and the complex life forms that evolved from each other in succession.

The why and how of this answer is explained with consistent logic and amazingly simple language that anyone with just basic knowledge of science can understand here:
Searching for the Origin of life

This book is a must-read for us both: believers and non-believers. It would be interesting to know what our non-believers have got to say on the arguments furnished in the book.

Dear Saidevo:

Your Book "Searching for the Origin of Life" concludes that some "outside information" is needed to give life...and for the Believers it's the Creator from somewhere who provides this "outside information".

Can you tell me more about this "outside information" as you understand it?

Anyway.. most of the Scientists (here I include not only the Biological/Medical Scientists, but other Sciences also, including Engineering and IT Sciences) don't subscribe to this Creator Theory of the Religions and Gods...

At the end of the day, we both need to proceed with our lives not interfering with each other.

Here is what I observe in the past at least 50 years:

More and more people seek employment in areas developed by Science and they consume more and more of the products and services provided by Science.. this includes very many Believers also..

So much so, if a Believer gets a chest pain, he/she thinks of immediately dialing for medical help via 911 and not thinking of the Creator who "gave this life" to him/her..

To this extent, Creator has not helped this Believer in the real sense, whereas Science has come very handy to protect and prolong the life of ALL people, including the Believer.

So much is the Majesty of Science - here I mean, a process of methodically and experimentally proceeding to unravel the intricacies of Nature and the Truth of Matter.

------------------

I have told you of what is the Structural Basis of Life (all those organic and inorganic molecules in the Protoplasm) and the Functional Basis of Life (the interplay or interaction of those micro and macromolecules in the Protoplasm).

Also, I have told you about the promises of human cloning.. creating identical persons and the promises it gives on the front of Nature Vs Nurture.

I have also said that the human consciousness - the Soul - the I-ness, thoughts, verbal and mental bombasts etc etc - are all the properties of the specialized Sensory Neurons of the pre-frontal cortex. When these Neurons die for whatever reason, everything disappears immediately.

All karma or action sets to zero... there can never be a Rebirth of the person or the Soul.

Neuroscientists are working hard to understand the neurocircuitry that gives rise to the thought process.

My question to you and other Believers is

Where are you all - the Believers - going from here?

You simply retired by saying "Ishwara is doing everything" That is a very simple WRONG answer...

you quit endeavoring to understand Nature!

Why?

 

[prasad1]

Geeta chapter 2 verse 14.

matra-sparshas tu kaunteya
sitosna-sukha-duhkha-dah
agamapayino ’nityas
tams titiksasva bharata

Geeta chapter 2 verse 15.
yam hi na vyathayanty ete
purusham purusharsabha
sama-duhkha-sukham dhiram
so ’mrtatvaya kalpate

In commentary

The contacts of the senses with the sense objects give rise to the feelings of heat and cold, and pain and pleasure. They are transitory and impermanent. Therefore, learn to endure them, O Arjun, (2.14) because a calm person --- who is not afflicted by these sense objects, and is steady in pain and pleasure --- becomes fit for immortality, O Arjun. (2.15)