Datasets:

alberto98fx
/

hinduism-stackexchange

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 918 rows

q_body stringlengths 46 17.9k	AcceptedAnswerId stringlengths 2 5	aa_pid stringlengths 1 5	q_score stringclasses 52 values	PostTypeId stringclasses 1 value	Id stringlengths 1 5	aa_score stringclasses 54 values	Title stringlengths 15 150	AnswerCount stringclasses 11 values	aa_id stringlengths 2 5	aa_body stringlengths 208 31.9k
<p>(Using the "body" and "hand" instead of "Brahman" and "Atman")</p> <p>Ramanuja says, "the hand is the same as the body but the hand is not the body itself".</p> <p>Madhu says, "the hand is not the body and the body is not the hand".</p> <p>Shankara says, "I'm not saying the hand and the body as the same but the hand and the body are not two different things"</p> <p>HELP! What is Advaita if Brahman and Atman are not being affirmed as being one but negated as being two?</p>	35852	35842	12	2	35842	8	What is Advaita?	4	35852	<p>It is not possible to say that Brahman and the Atman are one because in the Advaita experience the ego dissolves. Without the ego there is no one left to do the counting.</p> <blockquote> <p>In that state <strong>a man no longer finds the existence of his ego</strong>. And who is there left to seek it? Who can describe how he feels in that state - in his own Pure Consciousness - about the real nature of Brahman? There is a sign of Perfect Knowledge. <strong>Man becomes silent when It is attained. Then the 'I', which may be likened to the salt doll, melts in the ocean of Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute and becomes one with It. Not the slightest distinction is left.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><strong><em>The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, The Master with the Brahmo Devotees (I), October 28, 1882</em></strong></p>
<p>What is the more appropriate English word to be used when we talk about Ramayana, Mahabharata, or puranas and other scriptures? The use of the word "mythology" is quite common but I hear that "itihasa" is the more appropriate term. In that case, in what contexts would "mythology" be an appropriate term?</p> <p>Can someone throw some light on this?</p>	35915	35912	10	2	35912	11	Mythology vs itihasa?	4	35915	<p>We need to see what term is used for those scriptures in our scriptures. We should stick to it.</p> <p>The word used is "Itihasa" only. Here are various references from various scriptures: <br></p> <blockquote> <p>One should make them [i.e., the invited Brahmanas] listen to the Vedic recitations, Dharma-Sastras, <strong>Itihasas (History)</strong> Puranas, and the most beautiful portion [of the S'astras] dealing with [the performance of] the S'raddha. (66)</p> <p><em>Usana smriti, Chapter 5 , Verse 66</em></p> </blockquote> <br> <blockquote> <p>By reading the principal and minor aphorisms, the Puranas and <strong>Itihasas (Histories)</strong> daily, one gratifies them with streams of meat, thickened milk, oudana (barley cakes) and honey, (11)</p> <p><em>Katyayana Smriti, Chapter 14, Verse 11</em></p> </blockquote> <br> <blockquote> <p>The pilferer of learning and books is born dumb. He should give unto, a Brahmana, works on Nyaya (Logic) and <strong>Itihasa (History)</strong> with money presents. (22)</p> <p><em>Satatapa Smriti, Chapter 4, Verse 22</em></p> </blockquote> <br> <blockquote> <p>Then the best of Brahmanas should study the Vedas, <strong>histories (Itihasas)</strong>, and the kindred branches of knowledge (Vedangas), give instructions to his own pupils, and feed the good Brahmanas. (4)</p> <p><em>Vyasa Smriti, Chapter 3, Verse 4</em></p> </blockquote> <p>So, either we have to use the word Itihasa or we can try to find an English equivalent. Now, for many scriptural terms we don't have English equivalents like for Purana we simply use Purana. For Veda, Tantra it's the same.</p> <p>However, for <a href="http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?tran_input=itihAsa&direct=se&script=hk&link=yes&mode=3" rel="noreferrer">Itihasa we do have an English word</a> which is History. Hindu scriptures don't define what mythology is. The stories that are found in scriptures are depicted as incidents that had happened in ancient past. They also give the Yuga and time periods when those incidents occurred.</p>
<ol> <li><p>Do Vedas describe about the 11 rudras?</p></li> <li><p>What are the names of those rudras according to Vedas?</p></li> <li><p>How did they emerge from the supreme Rudra? </p></li> </ol>	36791	36197	6	2	36197	4	Are the 11 rudras mentioned in the Vedas?	3	36791	<p>No, they are not 11 Rudras mentioned in the Vedas. This is a concept invented in the Puranas. Specifically, Matsya(५.२९-३॰), (Harivamśa (१.३.४९-५२) and has no support in the Vedas.</p> <p>Rig Veda reveals Rudra as श्वितीचे (śvitīce) (२.३३.८) which is translated by Sāyaṇa as of white complexion. </p> <p>He is one among two or three gods who are invoked as having or assuming all forms. Another epithet for Rudra is varāha (१.११४.५) दिवो वराहमरुषं कपर्दिनं त्वेषं रूपं नमसा नि ह्वयामहे which is explained by Sāyaṇa one who has good food. </p> <p>Rudra bestows happiness on the sons and grandsons of the invoker (२.३३.१४) परि णो हेती रुद्रस्य वृज्याः परि त्वेषस्य दुर्मतिर्मही गात् ।अव स्थिरा मघवद्भ्यस्तनुष्व मीढ्वस्तोकाय तनयाय मृळ and grants a longer life and progeny (२.३३.१-२) अभि नो वीरो अर्वति क्षमेत प्र जायेमहि रुद्र प्रजाभिः </p> <p>Another important aspect of Rudra is his power to heal. </p> <p>Prayers are presented to Rudra to provide medicines (२.३३.१२) कुमारश्चित्पितरं वन्दमानं प्रति नानाम रुद्रोपयन्तम् । भूरेर्दातारं सत्पतिं गृणीषे स्तुतस्त्वं भेषजा रास्यस्मे and he is the Chief among all the physicians (२.३३.४ and १.११४.१). मा त्वा रुद्र चुक्रुधामा नमोभिर्मा दुष्टुती वृषभ मा सहूती । उन्नो वीराँ अर्पय भेषजेभिर्भिषक्तमं त्वा भिषजां शृणोमि ॥४॥ </p> <p>Rudra is described as the Lord of the world (२.३३.३-४) श्रेष्ठो जातस्य रुद्र श्रियासि and nobody is possessing more power than him (२.३३.१॰). अर्हन्निदं दयसे विश्वमभ्वं न वा ओजीयो रुद्र त्वदस्ति </p>
<p>Is Yoga a form of religious Hinduism? Are beliefs such karma, reincarnation or gods needed to practice it? Is appropriate to practice yoga if you are agnostic, atheist or believer in other religions such us Buddhism, Islam, Christianity etc? </p>	36302	36301	2	2	36301	4	Is yoga a religion?	4	36302	<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Religion</a> is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. </p> <p>So Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, etc, are religions.</p> <p>Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Saakteism, etc, being in vogue under the name of Hinduism are religions.</p> <p>However, <strong>Yoga</strong> is basically a pure <strong>SPIRITUAL CONCEPT</strong>.</p> <hr> <p>The Sanskrit noun <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBurley200025-70" rel="nofollow noreferrer">योग yoga</a> is derived from the root <strong>yuj</strong> "to attach, join, harness, yoke".</p> <p>Rig veda <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv05081.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">5.81.1</a></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>युञ्जते</strong> मन उत युञ्जते धियो विप्रा विप्रस्य बर्हतो विपश्चितः \| वि होत्रा दधे वयुनाविद एक इन मही देवस्य सवितुः परिष्टुतिः \|\|</p> <p>The illumined <strong>yoke</strong> their mind and they yoke their thoughts to the illuminating godhead, to the vast, to the luminous in consciousness;</p> </blockquote> <hr> <p>So <strong>Yoga</strong> means joining the mind with the God, ie., it indicates pure SPIRITUALITY.</p> <p>Asanas, Pranayama, etc, which are part of Asthanga Yoga, will aid in joining the mind with the God.</p> <p>A human can be irreligious/agnostic/religious, but can be SPIRITUAL.</p> <p>Dr. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Brunton" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Paul Brunton</a>, a sceptic, approached Sri Ramana Maharshi and got spiritually elevated.</p>
<p>Does the Bhagavad Gita declare that caste is based on birth?</p> <p>If so, which verses from the Gita declare that caste is based on birth? </p> <p>What do ancient, Vedantic commentators say?</p>	36409	36408	9	2	36408	2	Does the Bhagavad Gita declare that caste is based on birth?	3	36409	<blockquote> <p>Does the Bhagavad Gita declare that caste is based on birth?</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Yes it does, according to all ancient and orthodox Vedic commentators.</strong></p> <p>First, from chapter 1:</p> <blockquote> <p>1.41 - When unrighteousness prevails, O Krishna the women of the clan become corrupt; <strong>when women become corrupt, there arises intermixture of castes.</strong></p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>adharmābhi-bhavāt kṛṣṇa praduṣyanti kula-striyaḥ \| strīṣu duṣṭāsu vārṣṇeya jāyate <strong>varṇa-saṅkaraḥ</strong> \|\| 41 \|\|</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>...</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>1.43 - By the crimes of the clan-destroyers who bring about intermingling of castes, the ancient traditions of the clan and caste are destroyed.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>doṣair etaiḥ kula-ghnānāṁ <strong>varṇa-saṅkara-kārakaiḥ</strong> \| utsādyante <strong>jāti-dharmāḥ</strong> kula-dharmāśca śāśvatāḥ \|\| 43 \|\|</p> </blockquote> <p>These verses are saying that when society stops following Dharma, women become corrupt, and when women become corrupt, they will approach any and many men, and their children will be mixed caste or of unknown caste or even without caste like a Mleccha.</p> <p>The same concept is found in the Vedas and there is even a <a href="https://archive.org/stream/ShabaraBhasyaTrByGanganathJha/Shabara%20Bhasya%20tr%20by%20Ganganath%20Jha%20Vol%201#page/n75/mode/1up" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sutra</a> for it in Jaimini's <em>Purva Mimamsa Sutras</em>, which are commented upon by Shabaracharya:</p> <p>Adhyaya 1, Pada 2, Sutra 13:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>On account of the failings of women, (there can be no certainty regarding one's caste); specially as the son belongs to the progenitor.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Shabara's commentary on that sutra:</p> <blockquote> <p>Another example of a Vedic text stating what is contrary to direct facts, cited by the Opponent is - "We do not know if we are Brahmanas or non-Brahmanas" (Maitrayaniya Samhita 1.4.11 of the Krishna Yajur Veda). This is auxiliary to the injunction "When the pravaras [ancestral lineages] are being recounted, one should say <em>the deities are our fathers</em>" (Ibid.), which stands in need of justification; and the meaning of the eulogistic passage is that "Even a non-Brahamana would become a Brahmana by the recounting of pravaras [and hence it is necessary for the Brahmana also to recount his pravaras, as one can never be sure of one's brahmanahood (due to possible caste intermixing)"]. It is <em>difficult to know</em> if one is really a Brahmana; - and this is what is figuratively spoken of as "we do not know", <strong>and the difficulty in knowing it for certain is due to "the failings of women"</strong>, and also to the fact that "the son belongs to the progenitor"; this is also indicated by the advice "May you guard this dynastic line with great care." - Apastamba Dharma Sutra 2.6.13.6</p> </blockquote> <p>The Vedic verse is basically saying, "We don't know if we are Brahmanas or non-Brahmanas, therefore, one should say that their ancestral lineage is the Devas", which admits that caste is based on birth and ancestry.</p> <p>The <em><a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b013.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mahabharata</a></em> says the same thing,</p> <blockquote> <p>... by uniting themselves with women of other castes, led not by considerations of righteousness but by uncontrolled lust, cause numerous mixed castes to come into existence whose occupations and abodes depend on the circumstances connected with the irregular unions to which they owe their origin.</p> </blockquote> <p>So all these verses show that the Vedas, Mahabharata, and Bhagavad Gita all unanimously declare that caste is based on birth.</p> <p>What about Gita verses like 4.13 and 18.41 that are cited by Hindu reformists to try to show that the Gita supports a behavior based caste system?</p> <blockquote> <p>4.13 - The social system of four castes was generated by Me according to division of Gunas and Karma. Though I am the generator, know Me as a non-agent and immutable.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>18.41 - The duties of the Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas; Vaishyas and the Śūdras O Arjuna, are distinctly divided according to their inherent dispositions</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>brāhmaṇa kṣatriya viśāṃ śūdrāṇāṃ ca paraṅtapa \| karmāṇi pravibhaktāni svabhāva prabhavair guṇaiḥ \|\| 41 \|\|</p> </blockquote> <p>The word <em>guna</em> in these verses is actually referring to <em>bodily gunas</em>, and not mental gunas. The bodies of the people of the different castes have different gunas, which determines their <em>inherent, genetic predispositions by nature</em>, as <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/36048/11726">this answer</a> shows.</p> <p>The medieval Vedantic scholar <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta_Desika" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vedanta Desikan</a> has said,</p> <blockquote> <p>Owing to the preponderance of such qualities as sattvam, <strong>in the body</strong>, a man is entitled to be called a Brahmin, a kshatriya, and the like. But this is different from the praise of being a Brahmin that is often given in certain passages, owing to the quality of sattvam and the like <strong>in the mind</strong>.</p> </blockquote> <p>Here is Ramanujacharya's commentary for Gita verse 18.41:</p> <blockquote> <p>Svabhava = nature = own or inherent nature, of Brahmanas, etc. This nature means the past karma that has been the cause of determining the serveral births as Brahmana, etc. The gunas like sattvam, etc are born of this.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>...</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Duties, varying according to the qualities born of the natures of Brahmanas, etc., are assigned by the Shastras; i.e., the Shastras ddefine that such are the qualities possessed by Brahmanas, etc., such the duties proper to their station, and such their occupations, etc.</p> </blockquote> <p>So in conclusion, the Bhagavad Gita declares that caste is based on birth.</p>
<p>What does the Bhagavad Gita mean when it says caste is based on Gunas? Does it mean trained, external behavior, or genetic predisposition?</p> <p>For reference, this verse says,</p> <blockquote> <p>4.13 - The [social] system of four castes was generated by Me according to <strong>division of Gunas and Karma</strong>. Though I am the generator, know Me as a non-agent and immutable.</p> </blockquote> <p>What does the word <em>guna</em> mean in this verse? Does guna mean external, trained behavior that people see, or does it mean genetic, inherent, natural predisposition? It is well known that different people have different natures. Does guna here mean nature or nurture (trained, controlled behavior)?</p> <p>Also, what does the word <em>karma</em> mean in that verse? Does it mean a particular job (karma) the person happens to be doing? If so, does this mean that if I change jobs, my caste changes? But what if my displayed behavior doesn't match my job, which takes precedence, guna or karma to determine my caste? Or does it mean the <em>law of karma</em>?</p> <p>What do ancient Vedic commentators say?</p>	36434	36433	7	2	36433	4	What does the Bhagavad Gita mean when it says caste is based on Gunas? Does it mean trained, external behavior, or genetic predisposition?	3	36434	<blockquote> <p>What does the Bhagavad Gita mean when it says caste is based on Gunas? Does it mean trained, external behavior, or genetic predisposition?</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>According to the various Smritis, Vedas, and ancient Vedic scholars and commentators, the word <em>Guna</em> in the Gita verse means <em>genetic predisposition</em>.</strong></p> <p>For reference, Gita verse 18.41 says:</p> <blockquote> <p>The duties of the Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas; Vaishyas and the Śūdras O Arjuna, are distinctly divided according to their <strong>inherent dispositions.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>The medieval Sri Vaishnava Vedic scholar, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanuja" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ramanujacharya</a>, has commented on that verse as follows:</p> <blockquote> <p>The character of Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, Vaishyas, and Śūdras <strong>arise from their various inherent dispositions.</strong> In other words their past Karma is the cause of their being born in a specific caste. The dominant Guna is the result of such Karma.</p> <p>The Sattva-guna becomes dominant in the character of the Brāhmaṇa through the suppression of the qualities of Rajas and Tamas.</p> <p>In the Kṣatriya the dominant quality is Rajas through the suppression of Sattva and Tamas.</p> <p>The Tamo-guna becomes the inherent nature of the Vaishya, becoming slightly dominant by suppressing Sattva and Rajas.</p> <p>While in the Śūdra the Tamo Guna is much more dominant.</p> <p>Obligations and duties are assigned to them by the Scriptures according to their inherent dispositions. For the Shastras assume that the Brāhmaṇas and the others</p> </blockquote> <p>Next the question is, what does it mean by "inherent disposition"? Does this mean genetic predisposition or trained behavior?</p> <p>According to the medieval Sri Vaishnava Vedic scholar, Vedanta Desikan, it means genetic predisposition acquired at birth:</p> <blockquote> <p>Owing to the preponderance of such qualities as sattvam, <strong>in the body</strong>, a man is entitled to be called a Brahmin, a kshatriya, and the like. But this is different from the praise of being a Brahmin that is often given in certain passages, owing to the quality of sattvam and the like in the mind. <strong>The qualities of caste pertaining to the body which are due to the special qualities of the body arise even at the time of birth and remain until death.</strong> The Brahmin-like qualities which arise out of the preponderance of <strong>sattvam in the mind may be present in all castes.</strong> In Prahlada [an Asura], they are present even at the time of birth. In others, owing to such specific causes as contact with acharyas, <strong>these mental qualities are acquired later.</strong></p> <p>If in a Brahmin are found such features as are incongruous with his caste, it will meet with censure that, born in a caste which is declared by the shastras as being capable of such virtues as self restraint and mental serenity, he lapsed from the condition suitable to him. - page 306, Rahasya Traya Sara</p> </blockquote> <p>As for the next question:</p> <blockquote> <p>What does the word karma mean in that verse?</p> </blockquote> <p>The word "karma" in verse 4.13:</p> <blockquote> <p>The [social] system of four castes was generated by Me according to division of Gunas and <strong>Karma</strong>. Though I am the generator, know Me as a non-agent and immutable.</p> </blockquote> <p>means work (karma) that the shastras prescribe to people of different castes based on their guna:</p> <blockquote> <p>The whole universe from Brahma down to a clump of grass, together with the system of four social divisions divided according to the Gunas <strong>and by actions [karma] like self-control in accordance with the Gunas</strong>, was projected into being by Krishna. - Ramanujacharya's Gita Bhashya</p> </blockquote> <p>However, in verse 18.41, karma means something else. It means actions done in previous lives that cause you to be born in a particular caste:</p> <blockquote> <p>The character of Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, Vaishyas, and Śūdras arise from their various inherent dispositions. <strong>In other words their past Karma is the cause of their being born in a specific caste</strong>. The dominant Guna is the result of such Karma. - Ramanujacharya's Gita Bhashya</p> </blockquote> <p>This is in accordance with what the Smritis say. According to the Manusmriti, your future birth in a particular caste or species will be determined by the kind of mental guna you have cultivated and expressed in your life.</p> <blockquote> <p>Manu 12.40 - Those partaking of ‘Sattva’ reach the state of the gods, those endowed with ‘Rajas,’ the state of men, and those characterised by ‘Tamas,’ the state of beasts; such is the threefold migratory state.</p> <p>Inanimate beings, worms, insects, fishes, snakes, tortoise, cattle and wild animals,—represent the lowest state due to the quality of ‘Tamas.’—(42)</p> <p>Elephants, horses, despised Śūdras, Mlecchas, lions, tigers and boars—represent the middling state due to the quality of ‘Tamas.’—(43)</p> <p>Cāraṇas, Suparṇas, hypocritical men, Rākṣasas, and Piśācas—represent the highest state among those partaking of the quality of ‘Tamas.’—(44)</p> </blockquote> <p>So if your consciousness is like that of an animal, very tamasic, you will be born as an animal. Whereas, on the other hand, a Shudra who is naturally tamasic by genetic predisposition, serves Brahmanas and cultivates a sattvic consciousness, will be reborn as a Brahmana or Deva:</p> <blockquote> <p>Manu 12.48 - Ascetics and hermits, Brāhmaṇas, celestial beings, lunar asterisms, and Daityas represent the first state partaking of ‘Sattva.’</p> </blockquote>
<p>Let's Imagine a person. He does discuss lots of things about Sanatan dharma and how it is different from Abrahamic religions. He does follow the principals of Gita in real life. He also adheres to the authority of Veda. </p> <p>When someone asks if he believes in the existence of God, he says he is in search of the answer to this question. And also since he has not realized the existence of God, his current answer is No. </p> <p>So my question is as per what Vedas and Upnishads he is said to be a SPIRITUAL?</p> <p>Or this only do not quantify him to be a SPIRITUAL? </p>	36619	36613	7	2	36613	3	Can I believe in Sanatan Dharma while not believing in any of the God?	3	36619	<p>The answer is certainly yes. Hindu scripture does not ask for blind belief in God.</p> <blockquote> <p>...Reflecting on this entire teaching do as you think fit.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong><em>Gita 18.63</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Who is a spiritual person?</strong></p> <p>A person who is trying to be morally perfect is said to be a spiritual person.</p> <blockquote> <p>Among thousands of men, there will just be one here or there striving for spiritual perfection. From among the aspirants so striving, one perchance knows Me in truth.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong><em>Gita 7.3</em></strong></p> <p>It is not necessary to believe in a personal God to be spiritual. Strict Advaita Vedantists may not accept the concept of personal God. Sri Ramakrishna's Advaita Guru Totapuri did not initially accept Mother Kali.</p>
<blockquote> <p><a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/apastamba-dharma-sutra/d/doc116233.html" rel="noreferrer">Āpastamba 1.1.28-29</a>: If the proper time for initiation has passed, he shall observe, for the space of two months, the duties of a Student, as observed <strong>by those who are studying the three Vedas</strong>; after that he may be initiated; and after that he may be instructed.</p> <p><a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc199771.html" rel="noreferrer">Manu 3.1 (Period of Studentship)</a>: <strong>Duties relating to the Three Vedas</strong> should be observed under the Preceptor for thirty-six years, or for half that period, or for a quarter, or precisely till they have been got up.—(3.1)</p> <p><a href="https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/yuddha/sarga105/yuddharoman105.htm#Verse13" rel="noreferrer">Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa 6-105-13</a>: He [Surya, the sun-god] is the lord of the sky, the disperser of darkness, the <strong>master of the three Vedas</strong> (viz. Rik, Sama and Yajur), the sender of thick rain, the friend of water and the on who courses swiftly in the path of the sky.</p> <p><a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/chandogya-upanishad-english/d/doc238901.html" rel="noreferrer">Chāndogya Upaniṣad 2.21.1</a>: The <strong>three vidyās</strong> [the Ṛk, the Yajuḥ, and the Sāma] are together the hiṃkāra; these three worlds [the earth, the space between the earth and heaven, and heaven] are together the prastāva; fire, air, and the sun are together the udgītha; the stars, the birds, and the rays are together the pratihāra; serpents, gandharvas, and the ancestors are together the nidhana. This Sāma resides in everything.</p> <p>(Word-for-word explanation):</p> <p><strong>Trayī vidyā hiṃkāraḥ, the three Vedas</strong> [the Ṛk, the Yajuḥ, and the Sāma] are the hiṃkāra; ...</p> </blockquote> <p>Is the reference usually to the three types of Vedic mantras that can be present in any of the four Vedas or to the three Vedas, namely, Ṛgveda, Yajurveda and Sāmaveda? If it's the latter, why is Atharva Veda excluded from the list?</p>	43075	36715	9	2	36715	2	Why are Vedas often referred to as "three Vedas" instead of four? Why is Atharva Veda excluded from this list?	3	43075	<blockquote> <p><em>Why is Atharva Veda excluded from this list (trayī vidyā or trayo vedā)?</em></p> </blockquote> <p>The answer really depends on the philosophical school of thought one subscribes to.</p> <p>As <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayanta_Bhatta" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Jayanta Bhaṭṭa</a> of Nyāya school explains in his <a href="https://archive.org/details/nyayamanjarithecompediumofindianspeculativelogicbhattacharyyaj.v.mlbd_20200302_0800/page/n559/mode/2up" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nyāya-Mañjarī</a>, the Mīmāṁsakas did not believe that Atharva Veda was either authentic or apauruṣeyā and it is for this reason a lot of Śruti and Smṛti texts exclude it from their list of Vedas:</p> <blockquote> <h3>An objection to the validity of the Atharva Veda</h3> <br> <ol> <li><p>the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Vedas and the Sāma Veda teach us interrelated subject-matters. Hence we infer that these three Vedas have been composed by the same author. They are the source of valid knowledge as it is an inference that they owe their existence to one and the same author. But <strong>the Atharva Veda is entirely different from the above three Vedas since it has no concern with the religious rites mentioned in them. For this very reason it cannot be a source book of the religious rites.</strong> The Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda and the Sāma Veda enjoin the biggest religious acts such as the Soma-sacrifices Jyotiṣṭoma etc. Instructions regarding these sacrifices have been given in the different recensions of the Vedas. The Brahmins who are well-versed in these three Vedas can only take part in the observance of these rites. <strong>Therefore, the Vedas which enjoin such religious acts are only valid. The Atharva Veda is not so.</strong></p> <p>...<br></p> </li> <li><p>Śruti and Smṛti bear evidence to the above view. <br><br></p> <ol> <li>The passages quoted from the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (<a href="http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/ind/aind/ved/yvs/tb/tb.htm?tb028.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">III. 12. 9. 1</a>), the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44032.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">XI. 5. 8. 1-3</a>) and the Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad corroborate this view. <strong>The relevant portion in the passages is that they refer only to the three Vedas.</strong> <br><br></li> <li>The Saṃhitā of Manu strengthens this view. The Saṃhitā <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc199771.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">says</a> that one should observe the vow of celibacy for a period of twelve years in order to study the different Vedas. A Vedic student should reside in the house of his preceptor for 36 years, and read the three Vedas viz., the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda and the Sāma Veda. He should thus observe the vow of religious study. Manu <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc199925.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">has also stated</a> in his section on funeral ceremony that one who performs funeral ceremony should earnestly feed Brāhmaṇas who have made a complete study of the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda and the Sāma Veda together with the corresponding Brāhmaṇas and the different recensions of the Vedas. <strong><a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc199925.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Manu</a> makes mention only of those Brāhmaṇas who have made a complete study of the three Vedas as entitled to the funeral feast.</strong> But he does not make mention of the Brāhmaṇas who have studied the Atharva Veda. Nay, in some cases, prohibition is noticed. A Brahmin who is well-versed in the Atharva Veda should not be invited to do this and that act.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> </blockquote> <p><br>Jayanta Bhaṭṭa then proceeds to refute the Mīmāṁsaka arguments:</p> <blockquote> <h3>A reply to the said objections</h3> <p>...<br></p> <p>The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa commences a topic with the remark that the Ṛg Veda is the vital breath of Brahman and completes it with the statement that <strong>a Brāhmaṇa well up in the Atharva Veda is equal to Brahman</strong>.</p> <p>...<br></p> <p>The Taittirīya Upaniṣad says that besides the sheath known as Prāṇamaya there is another inner sheath called Manomaya. It makes a number of statements of this sheath. In this connection it remarks that the Yajur Veda constitutes its head, the Ṛg Veda its right wing, the Sāma Veda its left wing, the Brahman its soul and the Atharva Veda its tail.</p> <p>The Taittirīya says</p> <blockquote> <p>To face the east is better for the recitation of the Ṛg Veda, to face the south is better for the recitation of the Yajur Veda, to face the south is better for the recitation of the Sāma Veda and to <strong>face the west is better for the recitation of the Atharva Veda</strong>.</p> </blockquote> <p>In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa the following statements about the holy study of the Vedas are found. It commences with the statement that the mantras of the Ṛg Veda are the five mid-day oblations of milk unto gods. In this context it has been stated that the mantras of the Atharva Veda are the oblations of omentum to be offered to gods. He who studies the Veda everyday with this knowledge pleases gods with the offer of the oblation of omentum. Gods, being satisfied, incur his pleasure. The mantras of the Taittirīya Saṃhitā throw some light on the meaning of the above statement. O Fire! a person proficient in the Atharva Veda, has kindled you from Puṣkara. In the above mantras we find the word 'Atharva'. It is not the name of a particular sage. Such an interpretation does not stand to reasons since similar words, found in the other Vedas, may shake our confidence in the truth of the Vedas. We have cited passages from the Saṃhitas, Brāhmaṇas, Upaniṣads etc. in order to prove the authenticity of the Atharva Veda.</p> <p>...<br></p> <p>There is no such distinct book as goes by the name "trayī" (triplet). Though the collection of the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda and the Sāma Veda <strong>is loosely called trayī collection yet it has space enough to include other mantras</strong>...The three Vedas jointly advise the duties of a Brahman priest. But none of them is the triple Vedas. The Atharva Veda alone is the triplet. As the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda and the Sāma Veda are included in the Atharva Veda so the Atharva Veda having helped to discharge the duties of a Brahman priest, the three Vedas jointly perform them.</p> <p>...<br></p> <p>Some invite our attention to the statements "<em><strong>No body should have connection with a Brahman who has exclusively read the Atharva Veda</strong></em>". <strong>We have no regard for it since it is a statement of the Kalpa Sūtra and moreover is contrary to the spirit of the Vedas.</strong> If the above statement would have been a Vedic sentence then it had been interpreted in the light of the proper context. Most probably it has bearing only upon a particular Vedic rite. When that particular Vedic rite will be performed no scholar of the Atharva Veda should be appointed as a priest. It is an unconditional general statement then a conflict between the two Vedic sentences becomes inevitable. These two contradictory statements must be reconciled. We have cited Vedic sentences which accept the Atharva Veda as one of the Vedas. The prohibitive sentence suggests that the Atharva Veda falls outside the scope of the Vedas. The Vedas cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. Therefore, <strong>the prohibitive sentence must have a restricted meaning</strong>. <strong>A scholar of the Atharva Veda should not be appointed as a priest in connection with an act where his sacrifices are not required.</strong></p> </blockquote>
<p>We sometimes hear these arguments :<br /> <em>'Vedas ALONE are truth'</em>,<br /> and<br /> <em>'Whenever there is conflict between Sruti and Smriti, Smriti must be discarded'</em>.</p> <p>What is the source for this argument ? Is it Sruti or Smriti ?</p> <p>If it is Smriti, it's like a book saying "Don't believe me, I can be wrong". Then why do people believe <em>that</em> ?</p> <p>Do the proponents of this argument:</p> <ol> <li><p>know what all the Vedas are ? (out of 1000+ shakas we have < 100 remaining)</p> </li> <li><p>know all the mantras in Vedas ? (learning even 1 out of the 4 vedas takes a lifetime)</p> </li> <li><p>understand the meaning of Veda mantras ? (4 vedangas must also be learned - shiksha, vyakaranam, chandas, niruktam)</p> </li> </ol> <p>So, my question is this :<br /> Could you show me which verse from Vedas mentions that only Vedas should be accepted as truth ?</p> <p>If Vedas do not say so, then why do you believe something that is not in Vedas ?</p>	36830	36809	15	2	36809	13	What is source for claim that Sruti is more important than Smriti ? That Itihasa/Purana can be discarded if they conflict with Vedas?	5	36830	<p>The answer is no. There are five Vedas as follows:-</p> <p>1: Rigveda<br /> 2: Atharvaveda<br /> 3: Samveda<br /> 4: Yajurveda<br /> 5: Itihaas and puranas</p> <p>The Atharvaveda supports this claim.</p> <p><strong>Atharvaveda 11:7:24</strong> says that god created puranas and itihasa.</p> <blockquote> <p>Verses, and Songs, and magic hymns, Purāna, sacrificial text. All the celestial Gods whose home is heaven sprang from the Residue</p> </blockquote> <h3>Proofs for fifth Veda:</h3> <blockquote> <p>"Nârada said: 'I know the Rig-veda, Sir, the Yagur-veda, the Sâma-veda, as the fourth the Âtharvana, <strong>as the fifth the Itihâsa-purâna (the Bhârata)</strong>; the Veda of the Vedas (grammar); the Pitrya (the rules for the sacrifices for the ancestors); the Râsi (the science of numbers); the Daiva (the science of portents); the Nidhi (the science of time); the Vâkovâkya (logic); the Ekâyana (ethics); the Deva-vidyâ (etymology); the Brahma-vidyâ (pronunciation, sikshâ, ceremonial, kalpa, prosody, khandas); the Bhûta-vidyâ (the science of demons); the Kshatra-vidyâ - <strong>Chandoyoga Upanishad 7:1:2.</strong></p> <p>"A name is the Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, Sâma-veda, and as the fourth the Âtharvana, <strong>as the fifth the Itihâsa-purâna</strong>, the Veda of the Vedas, the Pitrya, the Râsi, the Daiva, the Nidhi, the Vâkovâkya, the Ekâyana, the Deva-vidyâ, the Brahma-vidyâ, the Bhûta-vidyâ, the Kshatra-vidyâ, the Nakshatra-vidyâ, the Sarpa and Devagana-vidyâ. All these are a name only. Meditate on the name. - "<strong>Chandoyoga Upanishad 7: 1:4.</strong></p> <p>"As clouds of smoke proceed by themselves out of a lighted fire kindled with damp fuel, thus, verily, O Maitreyî, has been breathed forth from this great Being what we have as Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, Sama-veda, Atharvâṅgirasas, Itihâsa (legends), Purâna (cosmogonies), Vidyâ (knowledge), the Upanishads, Slokas (verses), Sûtras (prose rules), Anuvyâkhyânas (glosses), Vyâkhyânas (commentaries). From him alone all these were breathed forth. - "<strong>Brihadarankya Upanishad 2:4:10.</strong></p> <p>"In this way all the Vedas are manifested along with the kalpas,rahasyas, Brahmanas, Upanishads, Itihas, anvakhyatas and the puranas." - <strong>Gopatha Brahman purva 2:10.</strong></p> </blockquote>
<p>I'm well aware that everyone's driven by the 3 modes of material nature! Reading of ways to get rid of sin is very different from LIVING and DOING the ways to get rid of sin. For instance, if I'm a power-hungry, leperous cheater, there's very little probability that I am of the nature of someone that recites "Hare Krishna" every day. But there have been some interesting instances!</p> <p>Practical observance: </p> <ol> <li><p>Kamsa killed 7 children, lived like a King nonetheless until his days became numbered.</p></li> <li><p>Ravana kidnapped Ram's wife, lived like a King nonetheless, an ardent devotee of Shiva, lots of boons, would only die to an avatar of Vishnu.</p></li> <li><p>Kauravas being blessed in many areas but eventually dying a painful death! Being blessed in some areas nonetheless! Duryodhana being blessed by his mother to be untouchable except around the groin (Basically everyone is undone by Krishna).</p></li> <li><p>Corrupt but god-fearing politicians who live a comfy life with 0 worries.</p></li> </ol> <p><strong>Need scriptural evidence from Puranas/Vedas/Upanishads where it is said that you can indeed subtract sin from virtue or evidence where there are singular statements that they say doing a certain activity would rid you of your sins or give you moksha.</strong> (There are probably countless of them, but feel free to quote the most famous ones)</p> <p>Example:</p> <blockquote> <p>"And whoever, at the end of his life, quits his body remembering Me alone at once attains My nature." - Krishna</p> </blockquote> <p>Motive:</p> <p>By Garuda Purana's measure, everyone in Kali Yuga is doomed (Read the consequences of every-day action). At the same time, there are places, like in the Gita: "And whoever, at the end of his life, quits his body remembering Me alone at once attains My nature." Need to live practically! </p>	36865	36852	7	2	36852	7	Can you subtract sin with enough virtue? Scriptural quotes/activities/instruction to wipe out any and all sin!	3	36865	<p>No.</p> <p>In the mythology of the Puranas and the epics, the picture of sins (pāpa ) and virtue (pūnya) that emerges is mostly based on the superstitions and is not comprehensive to present a unequivocal, logical, argumentative answer to your question. However, Vedas presents an answer that appeals to logic and legal philosophies.</p> <p>Before dealing with the question of pāpa or pūnya it is pertinent to deal with the motivation behind the karma. Because without knowing what the type of karmas are, what the cause of karmas is, it is not possible to establish the link between the karma and the restrain required on the karma. </p> <p>There are two theories regarding the karma that can be delineated 1) free-will or 2) lack thereof. </p> <p>2) In Ṛg Veda Vasiṣṭha is praying to Varuṇa (7.86.6) </p> <blockquote> <p>न स स्वो दक्षो वरुण ध्रुतिः सा सुरा मन्युर्विभीदको अचित्तिः । अस्ति ज्यायान्कनीयस उपारे स्वप्नश्चनेदनृतस्य प्रयोता ॥६॥</p> <p>na sa svo dakṣo varuṇa dhrutiḥ sā surā manyurvibhīdakoacittiḥ asti jyāyān kanīyasa upāre svapnaścanedanṛtasya prayotā</p> </blockquote> <p>The sin does not happen because of the defects of the doer. It happens due to illusion, anger, and ignorance, the impetus coming from the Devas. Even in the dreams it is impetus from the gods that sin is committed. </p> <p>Śāyana comments (paraphrased above) to this verse in original are: </p> <blockquote> <p>हे वरुण सः स्वोदक्षः पुरुषस्य स्वरूपवद्बलं पापपवृत्तौ कारणं न भवति किं तर्हि श्रुतिः स्थिरा उत्पत्तिसमय एव निर्मिता दैवगतिः कारणम् …एवं च सति स्वप्नश्चन स्वप्नोपि अनृतस्य पापस्य प्रयोता प्रकर्षेण मिश्रयिता भवति इदिति पूरकः स्वप्ने कृतैरपि कर्मभिर्बहूनि पापानि जायन्ते किमु वक्तव्यं जाग्रतिकृतैः कर्मग्निः पापान्युत्पद्यन्त इति ।</p> </blockquote> <p>That is to say, it is the God who provides the impetus to the human to commit sin. </p> <p>Durgācharya also commenting on the Nirūktā (1.4) holds a similar opinion. </p> <p>1) The free-will is best expressed in the Aṣṭādhyāyī of the celebrated grammarian Pāṇini (1.4.54) </p> <blockquote> <p>स्वतन्त्रः कर्ता ,</p> </blockquote> <p>which means that human is free to choose what karmas he should perform. </p> <p>Now coming back to your question. </p> <p>The Vedas clearly prescribe that the results of the sins must be borne. There is a story in the Ṛg Veda (1.35.9)</p> <blockquote> <p>हिरण्यपाणिः सविता विचर्षणिरुभे द्यावापृथिवी अन्तरीयते । अपामीवां बाधते वेति सूर्यमभि कृष्णेन रजसा द्यामृणोति ॥९॥</p> <p>hiraṇyapāṇiḥ savitā vicarṣaṇir ubhe dyāvāpṛthivī antar īyate \| apāmīvām bādhate veti sūryam abhi kṛṣṇena rajasā dyām ṛṇoti \|\|</p> </blockquote> <p>This a story which illustrates that even gods must bear the results of their sins. Once the gods performed a fire ceremony. There are many oblations to be performed in the fire ceremony. Savitṛ did not recite the required chants before raising the pot in the hand and as a result, the hand of Savitṛ fell. Adhvaryū was scared to see this and made a hand of the gold for Savitṛ A similar fate awaits Bhaga who ate from the offering pot without properly inspecting the contents and as a result, lost his eyesight. Pushan had to pay the price of tasting the contents by losing his teeth. </p> <p>This story is also mentioned in Kaushitaki Brahmana (6.13)</p> <blockquote> <p>अथ यत्र ह तद् देवा यज्ञम् अतन्वत । तत् सवित्रे प्राशित्रम् परिजह्रुः । तस्य पाणी प्रचिच्छेद । तस्मै हिरण्मयौ प्रतिदधुः । तस्माद्द् हिरण्य पाणिर् इति स्तुतः</p> </blockquote> <p>Yāska, the commentator of the Nighantu (Vedanga) also alludes to this story (3.11, 6.11).</p> <p>The moral of the story is that it does not matter what your position is the punishment for the sins must be borne. </p> <p>Vasiṣṭha says in his Dharma sutras (6.3) that Vedas cannot purify the person who is not mindful of his actions. </p> <p>Adityās are implored in the Ṛg Veda (8.18.10) to keep the supplicant away from the sins</p> <blockquote> <p>अपामीवामप स्रिधमप सेधत दुर्मतिम् । आदित्यासो युयोतना नो अंहसः ॥१०॥</p> </blockquote> <p>From the viewpoint of the Veda, it is to be understood that there is no pardon for the sinner. </p> <p>Through the mantras स नः पितेव (1.1.9), यो नः पिता जनिता (10.82.3) God has been remembered as mother or father but justice and mercy should not be considered as pitted against each other in the teachings of Veda. On the contrary, justice and mercy go together in the Vedas. </p>
<p>I heard many stories about deeds of Indra and other gods in Puranas. </p> <p>For e.g. rape of Ahilya by Indra, rape of Tara by Saima etc. So my question is how can a God do this?</p> <p>Are they really God? If they are not God why did Vedas praise them? Is there anything from Hindu scriptures, especially in Vedas or Upanishads, that denies them as God?</p>	37557	36872	3	2	36872	2	Are Devas like Indra god?	5	37557	<p>The question is</p> <blockquote> <p>I heard many stories about deeds of Indra and other gods in Puranas.</p> <p>For e.g. rape of Ahilya by Indra, rape of Tara by Saima etc. So my question is how can a God do this?</p> <p>Are they really God? If they are not God why did Vedas praise them? Is there anything from Hindu scriptures, especially in Vedas or Upanishads, that denies them as God?</p> </blockquote> <hr> <p><a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv02001.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rig Veda 2.1</a> says</p> <blockquote> <p>2 Thine is the Herald's task and Cleanser's duly timed; Leader art thou, and Kindler for the pious man. Thou art Director, thou the ministering Priest: thou art the Brahman, Lord and Master in our home.</p> <p>3 Hero of Heroes, Agni! Thou art Indra, thou art Viṣṇu of the Mighty Stride, adorable: Thou, Brahmaṇaspati, the Brahman finding wealth: thou, O Sustainer, with thy wisdom tendest us.</p> </blockquote> <p>In the 1st mantra, <strong>AGNI was eulogised as BRAHMAN</strong>, the Almighty. In the subsequent mantras AGNI was eulogised as <strong>INDRA, VISHNU</strong>, etc.</p> <p>So the names (AGNI, INDRA, VISHNU, etc.) used in the Veda, are epithets of same Almighty.</p> <p>In Rig Veda III.36.2 Indra was eulogised as the Regulator of TIME.</p> <hr> <p>The story of Indra and Ahalya is <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/35848/3869">allegorical in nature</a>, which was re-written demeaning Indra.</p> <p>In the post Vedic period, the epithets of the Almighty God were deified and speicific physical characteristics were attributed to each God, ie., (i) 3 eyes, serpent in the neck, Thrishula in Hand, etc, in respect of Shiva, (ii) Sudarshana in hand, Garuda as Vehicle, etc, in respect of Vishnu, and so on. </p> <p>Puranas were composed at a later date, to eulogise VISHNU/SHIVA/SHAKTI, etc, as SUPREME GOD.</p> <p>As such there is no concept of SUPREME GOD and demi Gods in Veda</p>
<p>Does any one know of a source (preferably a publication in print) of 'Sri Sankara Bhashyam' for 'Sri Nrusimha Tapani Upanisad'?</p> <p>As a background - some people, possibly Vaishnavas, believe that 'Sri Adi Shankaracharya' wrote a bhashyam for 'Sri Nrusimha Tapani Upanisad'. But I am not aware of any Smartha schools / institutions endorsing this notion. Personally I have not seen a Sankara Bhashyam for 'Sri Nrusimha Tapani Upanisad'.</p> <p>Any one with additional references, please provide.</p>	37084	37076	4	2	37076	4	Does Sankara Bhashyam exist for The Nrusimha Tapani Upanisad?	4	37084	<p>Commentary of Shankaracharya on Nṛsiṃha pūrva tāpaniya Upanishat exists. </p> <p><em><a href="https://archive.org/details/CollectedWorksOfSankara1910Edition/page/n1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Collected Works of Sankara 1910 Edition</a></em> published by Sri Vani Vilas Press, Sri Rangam. </p> <p>This book is a collection of various works which are <em>believed to be written</em> by Adi Shankaracharya. It contains following works:<br> 1. Brahmasutra-bhashya<br> 2. Brahmasutra-bhashya<br> 3. Brahmasutra-bhashya<br> 4. Upanishad-bhashya, vol. 1: Isa, Kena [2], Katha, Prasna<br> 5. Upanishad-bhashya, vol. 2: Mundaka, Mandukya, Aitareya<br> 6. Upanishad-bhashya, vol. 3: Taittiriya, Chhandogya 1-3<br> 7. Upanishad-bhashya, vol. 4: Chhandogya 4-8<br> 8. Upanishad-bhashya, vol. 5: Brihadaranyaka 1-2<br> 9. Upanishad-bhashya, vol. 6: Brihadaranyaka 3-4<br> 10. Upanishad-bhashya, vol. 7: Brihadaranyaka 5-6, <strong>Nrisimhapurvatapani</strong><br> 11. Bhagavad-Gita-bhashya, vol. 1: chaps. 1-9<br> 12. Bhagavad-Gita-bhashya, vol. 2: chaps. 10-18<br> 13. Vishnusahasranama and Sanatsujatiya Bhashyas<br> 14. Vivekachudamani, Upadeshasahasri<br> 15. Miscellaneous Prakaranas vol. 1: Aparokshanubhuti, etc. [7 works]<br> 16. Miscellaneous Prakaranas vol. 2: Prabodhasudhakara, etc. [25 works]<br> 17. Stotras, vol. 1 [30 works]<br> 18. Stotras, vol. 2 [35 works, plus Lalita Trisatistotra Bhashya]<br> 19. Prapanchasara, vol. 1<br> 20. Prapanchasara, vol. 2. </p> <p>Commentary on Nṛsiṃha pūrva tāpaniya Upanishat Starts with <a href="https://archive.org/details/CollectedWorksOfSankara1910Edition/page/n3351" rel="nofollow noreferrer">page 3352</a>.</p>
<p>I know Atman is self aware but I don't know why that Atman lost his self awareness that he is unlimited and beginning-less and instead acquiring limited body awareness.</p> <hr> <p>Even though I am a Muslim, Charles Darwin changed me into an atheist hence my question. I really like Hindu and how they allow you to ask difficult questions, even in Buddhism they don't allow you to ask difficult questions because they think those are unimportant.</p>	37726	37085	5	2	37085	2	Why, when and how did the Atman acquire body consciousness?	7	37726	<p><strong>Short Answer</strong></p> <p>Atman never loses its self awareness. You have the wrong idea. There's no material body in first place, then how can Atman acquire body consciousness?</p> <blockquote> <p>न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः ।</p> <p>न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ ३२ ॥</p> <p>There is no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth.</p> <p>-Mandukya Karika, verse 2.32</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Detailed Analysis</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>I know Atman is self aware but I don't know why that Atman lost his self awareness</p> </blockquote> <p>Atman never ever ever ever loses its self awareness, no matter what's the situation. If there's one thing you should take away from Vedanta, it should be this one. Its the basic principle.</p> <blockquote> <p>अमात्रश्चतुर्थोऽव्यवहार्यः प्रपञ्चोपशमः शिवोऽद्वैत एवमोङ्कार आत्मैव संविशत्यात्मनाऽऽत्मानं य एवं वेद ॥ १२ ॥</p> <p>Mandukya Upanishad - 12</p> <p>That which has no parts (soundless), incomprehensible (with the aid of the senses), <strong>the cessation of all phenomena, all bliss</strong> and non-dual Aum, is the fourth and verily the same as the Ātman. He who knows this merges his self in the Self.</p> </blockquote> <p>This view that Atman gets overcome by ignorance and starts to see this world is utterly wrong. Your question itself is wrong, how can you expect an answer?</p> <p>You are probably misled by the notion since it is said that "I am Atman", and since I see this world, it must be the case that Atman is in illusion. This is not the case.</p> <p>When scriptures say "I am Atman", or "This world is Atman", or "You are Atman", it means that substratum of me, you and this world is Atman only like a Gold bracelet, Gold ring is nothing but Gold. To conclude that Gold has forms like bracelet, ring etc. is a wrong conclusion. Similarly concluding Atman gets overcome by ignorance is not correct.</p> <blockquote> <p>एष एव जगद्.रूपम् जगद्.रूपम् तु न_ईश्वरे ।</p> <p>हेम_एव कटक.आदित्वम् कटकत्वम्न हेमनि ॥३।६१।५॥</p> <p>YV-3.61.5</p> <p>World is Ishwar only but there is no world in Ishwar like Gold bracelet is Gold only but there's no bracelet in Gold.</p> </blockquote>
<p>I have come across the many translations where "Mamsah" is translated as fruit or as root vegetable. As I am attaching here. </p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/RgQ5E.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/RgQ5E.jpg" alt="an example translation image of word Mamasah"></a></p> <p>The original translation As per my belief should be </p> <blockquote> <p>तां तदा दर्शयित्वा तु मैथिली गिरिनिम्नगाम् ।<br> निषसाद गिरिप्रस्थे सीतां मांसेन छन्दयन् ।। </p> <p>इदं मध्यमिदं स्वादु निष्टप्तमिद मग्निना ।<br> एवमास्ते स धर्मात्मा सीतया सह राघवः ।। (वाल्मीकि रामायण, अयोध्या काण्ड, 96, 1 व 2)</p> <p>Having shown to Sita the mountain-river Mandakini and gratifying her with meat, Rama sat on the mountain slope. Righteous Rama was seated in Sita's company and remarked saying "This meat is sacred. This is savoury roasted in fire". (Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodha Kanda 96:1-2)</p> </blockquote> <p>My question is </p> <ol> <li>What is validity of Different translation of Mamasah word done which is different then the etymology of "Mamsah" Word which is already discussed here. </li> </ol> <p><a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/32675/why-are-hindus-vegetarian-what-is-the-real-meaning-of-the-word-mamsah-%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%83">Why are Hindus vegetarian? What is the real meaning of the word 'mamsah' (मांसः) or meat?</a></p>	37230	37094	3	2	37094	4	What is validity of different translation of word" Mamsah"?	3	37230	<p>First off, as Sheldon Pollock points out in his <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=YJGRP-otpdIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">translation of Ayodhyākāṇḍa</a>, the two verses you quote in your question have been removed from the Critical Edition of Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa.</p> <blockquote> <p>Sarga 90</p> <p>1. <strong>In order to establish a reasonable transition between sargas, the SR [Southern Recension] inserts before this verse four lines</strong> (2091), in which Rāma, having shown Sītā around the mountain, sits down on the slope and <strong>gives her cooked meat to eat</strong> (thus attempting also to account for the fire mentioned in 87.21ff, and verse 10 below, cf. note on 89.19; it seems more likely that the fire is the one on the sacred altar, cf. 93.11 and 23, though whether one may unceremoniously douse a ritual fire, as Lakṣmaṇa will suggest in verse 10 below, is questionable).</p> </blockquote> <p>And even if those were present in the original Rāmāyaṇa, <em>medhya</em> and <em>māṃsa</em> together usually <a href="http://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/ayodhya/sarga96/ayodhyaroman96.htm#Verse1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">mean</a> "fresh or pure meat" and not "pulp made out of fruits and roots":</p> <blockquote> <p><em>tāṃ tathā darśayitvā tu maithilīṃ girinimnagām</em> \| <br> <em>niṣasāda giriprasthe sītāṃ <strong>māṃsena</strong> candayan</em> \|\| 2-96-1</p> <blockquote> <p><em>tathā</em> = thus; <em>darśayitvā</em> = having shown; <em>girinimnagām</em> = the mountaneous river Mandakini; <em>tāṃ sītāṃ</em> = to that Seetha; <em>maithilīṃ</em> = the daughter of the king of Mithila; <em>niṣasāda</em> = sat; <em>giriprasthe</em> = on the hill side; <em>candayan</em> = in order to gratify her appetite; <strong><em>māṃsena</em> = with flesh</strong>.</p> </blockquote> <p>Having shown Mandakini River in that manner to Seetha, the daughter of Mithila, Rama set on the hill-side in order to gratify her appetite with a piece of flesh.</p> <hr> <p><strong><em>idaṃ</strong> <strong>medhyamidaṃ</strong> svādu niṣṭaptamidamagninā</em> \| <br> <em>evamāste sa dharmātmā sītayā saha rāghavaḥ</em> \|\| 2-96-2</p> <blockquote> <p><em>saha rāghavaḥ</em> = that Rama; <em>dharmātmā</em> = of righteousness; <em>āste</em> = stayed; <em>sītayā saha</em> = with Seetha; <em>evam</em> = thus speaking; <em>idaṃ</em> = this meat; <strong><em>medhyam</em> = is fresh</strong>; <em>idaṃ</em> = this; <em>niṣṭaptam</em> = was roasted; <em>agninā</em> = in the fire.</p> </blockquote> <p>Rama, whose mind was devoted to righteousness stayed there with Seetha, saying; "<strong>This meat is fresh</strong>, this is savoury and roasted in the fire."</p> </blockquote> <p><br>Translation served by <a href="https://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/sloka?field_kanda_tid=2&language=dv&field_sarga_value=96" rel="nofollow noreferrer">valmiki.iitk.ac.in</a> also uses similar meanings for those words:</p> <blockquote> <p>मैथिलीम् princess of Mithila, तां सीताम् to Sita, तथा in that way, गिरिनिम्नगाम् mountainriver, दर्शयित्वा having shown, <strong>मांसेन</strong> <strong>with meat</strong>, छन्दयन् gratifying, गिरिप्रस्थे on the mountainslope, निषसाद sat.</p> <p>Rama showed Sita, the princess of Mithila the river Mandakini flowing in the mountain, <strong>gratified her by offering meat</strong> (to eat) and sat on the mountain slope.</p> <hr> <p>धर्मात्मा righteous, स राघवः that Rama, इदम् this, <strong>मेध्यम्</strong> <strong>sacred meat</strong>, इदम् this, स्वादु is savoury, इदम् this one, अग्निना with fire, निष्टप्तम् roasted, एवम् uttering this way, सीतया सह in the company of Sita, आस्ते was seated.</p> <p>Offering Sita several kinds of preparations to eat, righteous Rama, seated in her company remarked, This meat is savoury, <strong>this meat roasted on fire is sacred</strong>.</p> </blockquote> <p><br>Now, to answer your underlying question:</p> <blockquote> <p>So now the question is why this particular translator chooses फल-मूलके गूदेसे (pulp made of fruits and roots)?</p> </blockquote> <p>There are <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=YJGRP-otpdIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PR10#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">several commentaries/commentators</a> of Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa and one particular commentator, Vaṃśīdhara Śivasahāya, consistently uses <em>fruits and roots</em> instead of <em>meat</em> in his commentary, Śiromaṇi, abbrev. as <strong>Cr</strong> below. </p> <blockquote> <ul> <li>Cg:  the commentary called Bhūsaṇa (the name of the commentary on Bālakāṇḍa is Maṇimañjīrā, on Ayodhyākāṇḍa is Pītāmbarā) of Govindarāja </li> <li>Ck:  the commentary called the Amrtakataka of Kataka Mādhavā Yogīndra </li> <li>Cm:  the commentary called Tattvadīpikā of Maheśvaratīrtha </li> <li>Cna: the commentary of Sarvajña Nārāyaṇa (as cited by Lokanātha Cakravarti) </li> <li><strong>Cr</strong>:  the commentary called <strong>Śiromaṇi</strong> of Bansidhara (Vaṃśīdhara) <strong>Śivasahāya</strong> </li> <li>Crā: the commentary of Rāmanuja </li> <li>Cs:  the commentary of Satyatīrtha </li> <li>Ct:  the commentary called Tilaka of Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa, composed in the name of Rāmavarmā </li> <li>Ctr: the commentary called Dharmākūtam of Tryambaka Yajvan </li> <li>Ctś: the commentary called Taniślokī of Ātreya Ahobala</li> <li>Cv:  the commentary called Vivekatilaka of Varadarāja Uḍāli (Uḍāri)</li> <li>Cmu: the commentary called Munibhāvaprakāśikā - author unknown.</li> </ul> </blockquote> <p>And the <a href="https://archive.org/details/ValmikiRamayanIGitaPressGorakhpur/page/n1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gita Press translation</a> which you cite in your question appears to follow the Śiromaṇi commentary throughout. One possible reason why <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gita_Press" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gita Press</a> used this commentary over others is, <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gita-Press" rel="nofollow noreferrer">its founders</a> (Jayadayal Goyandka and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanuman_Prasad_Poddar" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hanumanprasad Poddar</a>) wanted to promote vegetarianism in India and among Hindus.</p> <p>To illustrate the extent Śivasahāya (Cr) goes to portray Rāma as a vegetarian prince, let's look at <a href="http://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/ayodhya/sarga52/ayodhyaroman52.htm#Verse102" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a> verse:</p> <blockquote> <p>tau tatra hatvā caturaḥ mahā mṛgān \| varāham ṛśyam pṛṣatam mahā rurum \| <br> ādāya medhyam tvaritam bubhukṣitau\| vāsāya kāle yayatur vanaḥ patim \|\| 2-52-102</p> <p><strong>Having hunted there four deer</strong>, namely Varaaha, Rishya, Prisata; and Mahaaruru (the four principal species of deer) and <strong>taking quickly the portions that were pure</strong>, being hungry as they were, Rama and Lakshmana reached a tree to take rest in the evening.</p> </blockquote> <p>Now compare with Pollock's notes:</p> <blockquote> <p>79. "meat" medhyam: This follows Ck, though the word is rarely used in this sense: alternatively, and perhaps preferably, we should read with T1, 2, G1, 3 medhyāṃs, "pure," that is, animals, those fit to consume; cf. 49.14, medhyān mṛgān, so in 50.16. In the NR substitution (1098) the brothers kill only one beast (a dappled antelope), light a fire, cook, and along with Sita eat the meat, and then retire for the night beneath a tree.</p> <p>Finally, and with a vengeance, Rāma breaks his fast (cf. note on 41.8 above), and it is noteworthy that he does so by eating meat (cf. note on 17.15, and contrast his words to Guha in 44.19-20, and to Bharadvāja in 48.15 [but see note ad loc.]). Ct (similarly Ck) remarks, "Meat is included in 'forest fare,' there is no fault here; nor is there any in his killing animals, since it is part of the dharma of hunting." </p> <p><strong>Cr's gloss displays an amusing perversity</strong>: "'He struck great animals,' that is, <strong>he knocked them about in fun</strong> and <strong>then took 'pure' food, fruits, etc.</strong>" </p> </blockquote> <p>Once again the <a href="https://archive.org/details/ValmikiRamayanIGitaPressGorakhpur/page/n380" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gita Press translation</a> follows Cr almost word for word:</p> <blockquote> <p>वहाँ उन दोनों भाइयोंने मृगया-विनोदके लिये वराह, ऋश्य, पृषत् और महारुरु-इन चार महामृगोंपर <strong>बाणोंका प्रहार किया</strong>। तत्पश्चात् जब उन्हें भूख लगी, <strong>तब पवित्र कन्द-मूल आदि लेकर</strong> सायंकालके समय ठहरनेके लिये (वे सीताजीके साथ) एक वृक्षके नीचे चले गये ॥१०२॥</p> </blockquote>
<p>Kadru cursed her children Sarpas/Nagas that they would be killed in Janmejaya's Sarpa Yajna. Later Lord Brahma modified the curse a bit that only evil would be killed. </p> <p>But Taksaka seems to be evil after looking at instances where he killed Parikshit and troubled Utanka in completing his guru dakshina task. Due to these reasons both Janmejaya and Utanka wanted to kill Taksaka. Sarpa yajna was actually organised to kill Taksaka but still he survived from this yajna.</p>	37680	37123	1	2	37123	1	What good deeds saved Taksaka from Sarpa Yajna?	3	37680	<ul> <li><p>One reason is mentioned in <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/37169/12304">answer by srimannarayana k v</a> that <strong>Indra took exception form Brahma to save Takṣaka</strong>.</p></li> <li><p>One more reason is mentioned in <a href="https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/12/6/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (Bhāgavata Purāṇa) 12.6.23-24</a> which says that <strong>Takṣaka had drunk the Amrita</strong> so due that reason he couldn't be killed.</p></li> </ul>
<p>A Christian once asked me this question when I was explaining him about karma and rebirth philosophy in Hinduism. I told him that if anything happens in anybody's life, it is the result of their karma in a previous birth. He then raised a question with the following example:</p> <blockquote> <p>If a thief stealing from a house is due to the sin of the houseowner in a previous birth, when a judge gives punishment to the accused, ideally the accused should <em>not</em> be found guilty.</p> </blockquote> <p>How can karma and rebirth theory be defended against this argument?</p> <p>So, did the thief not commit a sin because the robbery was destined to happen due to the houseowner's karma? Please answer with an authentic source.</p>	38034	37485	3	2	37485	0	Question related to karma and rebirth	5	38034	<p>Before coming to the example, one needs to understand the two types of karma in play here - <strong>Prarabdha</strong> and <strong>Kriyamana</strong>. But I will also include <strong>Sanchita</strong> karma for good order sake.</p> <ul> <li><em>Sanchita</em> Karma</li> </ul> <p>It is all your accumulated karma of past lives.</p> <ul> <li><em>Prarabdha</em> karma </li> </ul> <p>It is that portion of <em>Sanchita</em> karma that will fructify in this life. One cannot escape it.</p> <ul> <li><em>Kriyamana</em> karma </li> </ul> <p>It is the karma that is being made for the future i.e. fruits of which we will experience in this lifetime or next lifetime. If next lifetime then it gets stored into <strong>Sanchita</strong> karma </p> <p>In mathematical terms</p> <p><em>SanchitaL</em> = <em>SanchitaL-1</em> — <em>PrarabdhaL</em> + <em>KriyamanaL</em></p> <p>Where</p> <p><em>SanchitaL</em> and <em>SanchitaL-1</em> are accumulated karma at the end of life L and L-1 respectively</p> <p><em>PrarabdhaL</em> is that portion of <em>SanchitaL-1</em> experienced in life L</p> <p><em>KriyamanaL</em> are the net new actions in life L over which you have control</p> <p>So coming to example , the house owner losing wealth is because of his <em>Prarabdha</em> karma. If the thief didn't steal it , he would have lost it via another theft , poor investment decision etc.</p> <p>The thief committing the robbery has incurred bad <em>Kriyamana</em> karma. So if he didn't receive punishment in this life then he would get it in one of his future lives because the <em>Kriyamana</em> karma will get stored into <em>Sanchita</em> karma. In one of his next rebirths he would suffer losses accordingly. </p> <p>The judge is carrying out his prescribed duty. If he didn't carry out his duty i. e. punish the robber , then he would incur bad <em>Kriyamana</em> karma . </p>
<p>Is there any Vedic verse that explicitly says Brahma and Shiva did not exist before creation?</p> <p>Many verses say only Brahman existed before creation. But what about Brahma and Shiva?</p>	37658	37657	0	2	37657	4	Is there any Vedic verse that explicitly says Brahma and Shiva did not exist before creation?	3	37658	<blockquote> <p>Is there any Vedic verse that explicitly says Brahma and Shiva did not exist before creation?</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Yes.</strong> For example this verse from the Maha Upanishad:</p> <blockquote> <p>eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsIt, na brahmA neshAnaH</p> <p>Only Narayana was there. Not Brahma, nor Shiva.</p> </blockquote> <p>The modern day Mahopanishad is interpolated but this verse was cited by many ancient Vedantins including Yamunacharya, Ramanujacharya, Vedanta Desika, Yadavaprakasha, and Narayanacharya.</p> <p>Also, this verse also exists in the Paingirahasya Brahmana in a slightly modified form with sandhis:</p> <blockquote> <p>eko ha vai nārāyaṇa āsīn na brahmā na ca śaṅkaraḥ</p> </blockquote> <p>The Paingirahasya Brahmana is an extinct Brahmana of the Rig Veda. Only some verses have survived through citations.</p> <p>Also, according to the Taittiriya Upanishad, the Devas, Indra, Brihaspati, and Brahma are not the supreme Brahman because the bliss that they experience is much less than the bliss that Brahman experiences:</p> <blockquote> <p>One hundred times that bliss of the Devas is one measure of the bliss of Indra, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.</p> <p>One hundred times that bliss of Indra is one measure of the bliss of Brihaspati, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.</p> <p>One hundred times that bliss of Brihaspati is one measure of the bliss of Pragâpati, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.</p> <p>One hundred times that bliss of Pragâpati is one measure of the bliss of Brahman, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.</p> </blockquote> <p>Because Brahman is mentioned apart from Prajapati, Brihaspati, Indra, and the Devas, it stands that those Devas are not Brahman according to this Upanishad.</p>
<p>It would be great if someone could post the reference to this verse from the Bhagavat Gita as I couldn't find it when searched on Google. </p> <p>This is how the verse comes:</p> <blockquote> <p>Birth is not the cause, my friend; it is virtues which are the cause of auspiciousness. Even a candala observing the vow is considered a brahmana by the gods.</p> </blockquote> <p>Note: I heard that the above verse is from Bhagavat Gita from the following links: Link to the video: <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui0z6ceY2H8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui0z6ceY2H8</a> <a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/HM91j.jpg)" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/HM91j.jpg)" alt="Screenshot to the verse in the YouTube video"></a></p> <p>Other articles: <a href="http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Caste_System6.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Caste_System6.htm</a>! <a href="https://archive.org/stream/TributeToHinduismTheCasteSystem/Tribute%20to%20Hinduism-The%20Caste%20System_djvu.txt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://archive.org/stream/TributeToHinduismTheCasteSystem/Tribute%20to%20Hinduism-The%20Caste%20System_djvu.txt</a></p>	37721	37695	3	2	37695	3	Is this verse really there in the Bhagavat Gita? Please answer with reference	3	37721	<p>That verse doesn't belong to the Bhagavad-gītā but is taken from the Aśvamedha Parva of the Southern Recension of the Mahābhārata (<a href="https://sanskritdocuments.org/mirrors/mahabharata/mbhK/mahabharata-k-14-itx.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kumbakonam Edition</a>):</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Ashvamedhikaparva - adhyAya 116</strong></p> <p>14.116. adhyAyaH 116 <br></p> <p>Mahabharata - Ashvamedhika Parva - Chapter Topics <br></p> <blockquote> <p>kR^iShNena yudhiShThiraMprati bhakagavadbhaktisaushIlyAdyabhAve brAhmaNAnAmapi agnihotrasvAdhyAyAdhyayanAdisatkarmaNAmapi vaiphalyasya shUdrANAmapi bhaktyAdimatAM svochitakiMchitkarmaNAmapi sAphalyasya cha kathanam.. 1 ..<br></p> </blockquote> <p>Mahabharata - Ashvamedhika Parva - Chapter Text <br></p> <p>yudhiShThira uvAcha.<br></p> <blockquote> <p>kIdR^ishA brAhmaNAH puNyA bhAvashuddhAH sureshvara.<br> yatkarma saphalaM neti kathayasya mamAnagha.. 14-116-1 <br></p> </blockquote> <p><strong>bhagavAnuvAcha</strong>. 14-116-2x <br></p> <blockquote> <p>shR^iNu pANDava tatsarvaM brAhmaNAnAM yathAkramam.<br> saphalaM niShphalaM chaiva teShAM karma bravImi te.. 14-116-2 <br></p> <p>tridaNDadhAraNaM maunaM jaTAdhAraNamuNDanam.<br> valkalAjinasaMvAso vratacharyA.abhiShechanam.. 14-116-3 <br></p> <p>agnihotraM gR^ihe vAsaH svAdhyAyaM dArasatkriyA.<br> sarvANyetAni vai mithyA yadi bhAvo na nirmalaH.. 14-116-4 <br></p> <p>agnihotraM vR^ithA rAjanvR^ithA vedAstathaiva cha.<br> shIlena devAstuShyanti shrutayastatra kAraNam.. 14-116-5 <br></p> <p>kShAntaH dAntaM jitakrodhaM jitAtmAnaM jitendriyam.<br> tamagryaM brAhmaNaM manye sheShAH shUdrA iti smR^itAH.. 14-116-6 <br></p> <p>agnihotravrataparAnsvAdhyAyaniratA~nshuchIn.<br> upavAsaratAndAntAMstAdevA brAhmaNAnviduH.. 14-116-7 <br></p> <p><strong>na jAtyA pujIto rAjanguNAH kalyANakAraNAH</strong>.<br> <strong>chaNDAlamapi vR^ittasthaM taM devA brAhmaNaM viduH</strong>.. 14-116-8 <br></p> <p>manashshauchaM karmashauchaM kulashauchaM cha bhArata.<br> sharIrashauchaM vAkChauchaM shauchaM pa~nchavidhaM smR^itam.. 14-116-9 <br></p> <p>pa~nchasveteShu shaucheShu hR^idiM shauchaM vishiShyate.<br> hR^idayasya cha shauchena svargaM gachChanti mAnavAH.. 14-116-10 <br></p> <p>...</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p><br>As the editors of the Critical Edition of the Mahābhārata <a href="https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.327565#page/n511/mode/1up" rel="nofollow noreferrer">explain</a>, the above dialogue between Yudhiṣṭhira and Kṛṣṇa is a late addition to the Mahābhārata and is only present in the Southern Recension manuscripts:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>The Vaiṣṇavadharmaśāstra Interpolation</strong> </p> <p>The Aśvamedhikaparvan has the distinction of having a very big interpolation or addition (constituting about 1700 ślokas), which is shown by us as Appendix.</p> <p>The Southern Recension MSS contain this portion which is omitted in all MSS representing the Northern Recension. Sāyaṇa in his Parāśaramādhavīya (B S S Vol I) and Vādirāja, the author of the Lakṣaṇālaṅkāra, have quoted from this section as P P S Sastri has pointed out.</p> <p>It is purely sectarian (Vaiṣṇavite) work, very conveniently tacked on to the Aśvamedhikaparvan at the end. At the conclusion of the Aśvamedha sacrifice, Yudhiṣṭhira requests Kṛṣṇa to describe the Vaiṣṇavadharma in all its aspects, ritualistic, philosophical, etc. Gods and Brahmarṣis also, desirous of listening to this Dharma saṃvāda, come there. Kṛṣṇa discourses on various matters, such as — </p> <ol> <li>The Varṇāśramadharmas </li> <li>The nature of the three fold Dāna </li> <li>Praise of Brāhmaṇas and devotees of the Lord </li> <li>Yama loka</li> <li>The fruits of Toyānnadāna, Bhūdāna, Kanyā dāna, Godāna, etc </li> <li>The five Mahāyajñas, Pitṛtarpaṇa, etc </li> <li>Kapilādāna </li> <li>Āpatddharma etc </li> </ol> <p>There is not much of philosophy here, the section being intended for the glorification of Vaiṣṇavadharma, and devotion to the Bhagavat. Attention is drawn even to trivial matters, like how one should take a bath or put on his clothes. On the whole, this section can have an appeal only to those who are followers of the Bhāgavata-dharma.</p> </blockquote>
<p>As we all know that Upanishads were written to understand Vedas. Some great scholars also said that they are the branches of Vedas. My question is related to it. Yesterday in a library, I was reading some books and then I found a book written by Dr. Surendra KR Sharma. The name of the book was in Hindi <strong>Kya baloo ki bhit par khada hai Hindu dharma (Does Hinduism stand on the wall of sand)</strong>. On page no. 344.<img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/80Bgp.png" alt="enter image description here"></p> <p>In this book he quoted Mundak Upanishad 1:1:5. I am giving the English translation by Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. <img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/7xHpY.png" alt="enter image description here"></p> <p>So my question I am confused now that <strong>Why Vedas are called inferior in Upanishads?</strong></p>	38213	37727	3	2	37727	4	Why Vedas are called inferior in Upanishads?	4	38213	<p>The Vedas are divisible into two parts which are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%ABm%C4%81%E1%B9%83s%C4%81" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Purva Mimamsa</a> or Karma Mimamsa dealing with rituals for Dharma, Artha, Kama and Gyana Kanda or Uttara Mimamsa/Upanishads for Moksha. Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha together are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puru%E1%B9%A3%C4%81rtha" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Purusartha</a> or purpose of society and its beings. Upanishads have called Purva Mimamsa as inferior when compared to Gyana Kanda Vedanta.</p> <p><a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/mundaka-upanishad-shankara-bhashya/d/doc145078.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mundaka Upanishad Chapter 1</a></p> <blockquote> <ol start="3"> <li>Saunaka, a great grihasta, having duly approached Angiras, questioned him “What is that, O Bhagavan which being known, all this becomes known.” (3)</li> <li><strong>To him he said “There are two sorts of knowledge to he acquired. So those who know the Brahman say; namely, Para and Apara, i.e., the higher and the lower.</strong></li> <li><strong>Of these, the Apara is the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sama Veda, and the Atharva Veda, the siksha, the code of rituals, grammar, nirukta, chhandas and astrology. Then the para is that by which the immortal is known.</strong></li> <li>That which cannot be perceived, which cannot be seized, which has no origin, which has no properties, which has neither ear nor eye, which lias neither hands nor feet, which is eternal, diversely manifested, all-pervading, extremely subtle, and undecaying, which the intelligent cognized as the source of the Bhutas. (6)</li> <li>As the spider creates and absorbs, as medicinal plants grow from the earth, as hairs grow from the living person, so this universe proceeds from the immortal.</li> <li>By tapas Brahman increases in size and from it food is produced; from food the prana, the mind, the Bhûtas the worlds, karma and with it, its fruits.</li> <li>From the Brahman who knows all and everything of all and whose tapas is in the nature of knowledge, this Brahma, name, form and food are produced.</li> </ol> </blockquote> <p>Importance of Brahmgyan over memorizing Vedic Karma kanda alone, was also explained by sage Yagyavalkya to Gargi and sage Uddalak to his son Shvetaketu.</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc118359.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Brihadarayanka Upanishad 3.8.9</a>. <strong>He, O Gārgī, who in this world, without knowing this Immutable, offers oblations in the fire, performs sacrifices and undergoes austerities even for many thousand years, finds all such acts but perishable; he, O Gārgī, who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable, is miserable.</strong> But he, O Gārgī, who departs from this world after knowing this Immutable, is a knower of Brahman.</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/chandogya-upanishad-english/d/doc239254.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chandogya Upanishad Chapter 6</a></p> <blockquote> <p>1.1. Āruṇi had a son named Śvetaketu. Once Āruṇi told him: ‘Śvetaketu, you should now live as a brahmacārin. No one in our family has not studied the scriptures and has not been a good brāhmin’.</p> <p>1.2. <strong>Śvetaketu went to his teacher’s house at the age of twelve. After studying all the Vedas, he returned home when he was twenty-four, having become very serious and vain, and thinking himself to be a great scholar. [Noticing this,] his father said to him: ‘O Śvetaketu, you have now become very serious and vain, and you think you are a great scholar. But did you ask your teacher for that teaching [about Brahman]—</strong></p> <p>1.3.<strong>‘—that teaching by which what is never heard becomes heard, what is never thought of becomes thought of, what is never known becomes known?’</strong> [Śvetaketu asked,] ‘Sir, what is that teaching?’.</p> <p>1.5. O Somya, it is like this: By knowing a single lump of gold you know all objects made of gold. All changes are mere words, in name only. But gold is the reality.</p> <p>1.7. [Śvetaketu said:] ‘Surely my revered teachers did not know this truth. If they knew it, why should they not have told me? So please explain it to me, sir.’ His father said, ‘Let it be so, my son’.</p> <p>2.1. Somya, before this world was manifest there was only existence, one without a second. On this subject, some maintain that before this world was manifest there was only non-existence, one without a second. Out of that non-existence, existence emerged.</p> <p>2.2. The father said: ‘O Somya, what proof is there for this—that from nothing something has emerged? Rather, before this world came into being, O Somya, there was only existence, one without a second’.</p> <p>2.3. That Existence decided: ‘I shall be many. I shall be born.’ He then created fire. That fire also decided: ‘I shall be many. I shall be born.’ Then fire produced water. That is why whenever or wherever a person mourns or perspires, he produces water.</p> <p>3.2. That god [Existence] decided: ‘Entering into these three deities [fire, water, and earth], as the individual self, I shall manifest myself in many names and forms’.</p> <p>3.3. Sat [Existence] thought, ‘I shall divide each of these three deities threefold.’ Then, having entered into these three deities as the individual self, he manifested himself as names and forms.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thats why, after Buddhism spread in India during reign of Ashoka, many leftout Hindus attached themselves to Purva Mimamsa for Dharma,Artha and Kama naturally, and Adi Shankaracharya, champion of Uttara Mimamsa defeated Buddhists and followers of Karma Mimamsa like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%E1%B9%87%E1%B8%8Dana_Mi%C5%9Bra" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mandana Mishra</a> in <a href="https://www.esamskriti.com/e/Spirituality/Vedanta/The-classic-debate-between-Mandana-Misra-and-Adi-Shankara-1.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">scriptural debates</a> and made them enter into Sanyass or Bhakti Hinduism of Puranas.</p>
<p>Life after death is found in Hinduism, the Atmans are taken by Yama then they are judged and go either to heaven (abode of Indra) or to hell (abode of Yama), however this residence is temporarily and not eternal then they will reincarnate again at the end.</p> <p>Can gods like Yama and his assistants have bodies while the judged Humans are just Atmans without bodies?</p> <p>So, the question is: Do gods like Brahma, Vishnu, Indra and Yama, in their Lokas, have bodies or are they just Atmans?</p>	37757	37752	7	2	37752	5	Do gods like Brahma, Vishnu, Indra and Yama, in their Lokas, have bodies or are they just Atmans?	3	37757	<blockquote> <p>Do gods like Brahma, Vishnu, Indra and Yama, in their Lokas, have bodies or are they just Atmans?</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Yes they have bodies according to the Brahma Sutras.</strong></p> <p>Ramanujacharya in his Sri Bhashya <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48124.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">says</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>The devas, from Brahma downward, possess a body and sense-organs, is declared in all the Upanishads.</p> <p>...</p> <p>The dharmasâstras, itihâsas, and purânas also, which are founded on the different brâhmanas, mantras and arthavâdas, clearly teach that Brahma and the other gods, as well as the Asuras and other superhuman beings, have bodies and sense-organs, constitutions of different kinds, different abodes, enjoyments, and functions.</p> </blockquote>
<p>If Daśaratha did not kill Shravan intentionally, then why was he cursed for an accident?</p> <p>It was not his intention to kill any human being (or Rishi in this case). It was just that he thought there was an elephant and he shot it down.</p> <p>Did his previous karmas lead him to this destiny?</p>	37998	37975	6	2	37975	4	Was Daśaratha/Dasharatha at fault to receive a curse for killing a boy unintentionally?	4	37998	<p>It is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana that Dasratha was an ace hunter who could shoot unseen (just on hearing ) Ayodhya Kanda <a href="http://valmikiramayan.net/utf8/ayodhya/sarga63/ayodhya_63_frame.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ch 63</a> Verse 11</p> <blockquote> <p>"This sin was done by me while I was young and wielding a bow. At that time, I was famous as a young man, who can shoot heard (but unseen) object by an arrow, O Kausalya!"</p> </blockquote> <p>But he mistakenly killed the young ascetic taking him for an elephant drinking water.</p> <p>As the act was unintentional , he didn't incur sin of killing the ascetic. But as Dasratha caused suffering to ascetic's parents, ascetic's father cursed him</p> <p>This is evident at the time of deceased ascetic's father lament</p> <p>Valmiki Ramayana <a href="http://valmikiramayan.net/utf8/ayodhya/sarga64/ayodhya_64_frame.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ayodhya Kanda Chp 64 , verses 23-25</a></p> <blockquote> <p>"A killing brought about by a warrior premeditatedly and in particular to a hermit, would expel even Indra from his post."</p> <p>"The head of a dispatcher of a weapon with a knowledge of the matter on a sage established in austerity or such an unmarried student practicing sacred study, gets burst into seven pieces."</p> <p>"You are still surviving because you have done it unknowingly. Not even you, but today the whole of Ikshvaaku dynasty would have been no more, if it is not the case."</p> </blockquote> <p>As seen from above verses the ascetic father acknowledges that it is an unintentional act . If it wasn't huge calamity would have befallen on Dasratha.</p> <p>Ascetic's father acknowledges that Dasratha doesn't incur the sin of killing because he acted out of ignorance</p> <p><a href="http://valmikiramayan.net/utf8/ayodhya/sarga64/ayodhya_64_frame.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Verse 56</a></p> <blockquote> <p>O, king! Since the sage was killed by you, belonging to the warrior class, through <strong>ignorance</strong>, the sin of killing a Brahmin will <strong>not</strong> take possession of you</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201924.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Manusmriti 11.46</a> says</p> <blockquote> <p>A sin committed <strong>unintentionally</strong> is expiated by the reciting of the Veda; while that committed intentionally, in folly, is expiated by the various forms of expiatory rites.—(46)</p> </blockquote> <p>Because Dasratha was safe as far as sin is concerned (all he had to do was recite vedas), the father of ascetic took matters in his own hands .After all he was in pain and agony because of Dasratha</p> <p>Verse 55</p> <blockquote> <p>O, king! Even as I am suffering from agony now because of the loss of my son, in the same manner; you will also die due to agony caused by the loss of your son</p> </blockquote> <p>Finally, there is no past life Karma in play here. If there was Prarabdha karma then he would suffer the loss of Rama without the curse. Dasratha suffered in the end solely because of the curse</p>
<p>I would like to know about the original source and version and the author of the famous bhajan <strong>Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram</strong>. This bhajan was later edited and popularized by Gandhi. This was widely attributed to his attempts to bring about restoration of friendly relations but it is anybody’s guess how many muslims would have actually sung this. Compare this with the confusion that it brought about in the minds of Hindus.</p> <p>Please cite authentic references.</p>	38163	38156	6	2	38156	8	Original version of Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram bhajan?	3	38163	<p>The original lyrics of Raghupati Raghava Rajaaram are written by <strong>Sri Lakshamanacharya</strong> in a religious text titled <strong>Shri Nama Ramayanam</strong></p> <p>Source: <a href="https://arisebharat.com/2018/06/25/raghupati-raghav-rajaram-the-original-lyrics/" rel="noreferrer">Raghupati Raghav Rajaram – The Original Lyrics</a></p> <p>Original text of Bhajan: </p> <blockquote> <pre><code>रघुपति राघव राजाराम पतित पावन सीताराम सुंदर विग्रह मेघश्याम गंगा तुलसी शालग्राम भद्रगिरीश्वर सीताराम भगत-जनप्रिय सीताराम जानकीरमणा सीताराम जयजय राघव सीताराम </code></pre> </blockquote> <p>These devotional songs falls in category called as <strong>Nām Jap / नाम जप</strong> (chanting of various names of any god / goddess). </p> <p>Gandhi had nothing to do with the lyrics of this Bhajan. This bhajan was already popular among common folks (Hindu devotees) before him. However, only thing Gandhi did was tempering the original lyrics to suit his vested political interests. </p> <p><strong>how many Muslims would have actually sung this?</strong> </p> <p>Honestly, Very handful of people might notice the Independence time and Allah has nothing to do with this Bhajan, Don't know the Gandhi intension behind temper the original words? May be restore friendly atmosphere between Hindus and Muslims which didn't happen later. </p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/NJ9bz.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/NJ9bz.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
<p>We know that Parashurama <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03116.htm" rel="noreferrer">killed</a> his mother Renuka without a blink on his father's Jamadgani's command. But <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc199615.html" rel="noreferrer">Manusmriti 2.145</a> says </p> <blockquote> <p>In veneration, the Preceptor excels ten Sub-teachers; the Father a hundred preceptors, and the Mother a thousand Fathers.</p> </blockquote> <p>So why did Parashurama obey his father's command ?</p>	52446	38239	6	2	38239	1	If mother is superior to father then why did Parashurama kill his mother on his father's command?	3	52446	<blockquote> <p>So why did Parashurama obey his father's command ?</p> </blockquote> <p>This is answered in the <a href="https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/9/16/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Srimad Bhagavatam</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>राम: सञ्चोदित: पित्रा भ्रातृन् मात्रा सहावधीत् । <strong>प्रभावज्ञो मुने: सम्यक् समाधेस्तपसश्च</strong> स: ॥ ६ ॥</p> <p>Jamadagni then ordered his youngest son, Paraśurāma, to kill his brothers, who had disobeyed this order, and his mother, who had mentally committed adultery. Lord Paraśurāma, <strong>knowing the power of his father, who was practiced in meditation and austerity</strong>, killed his mother and brothers immediately.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>उत्तस्थुस्ते कुशलिनो निद्रापाय इवाञ्जसा । पितुर्विद्वां<strong>स्तपोवीर्यं</strong> रामश्चक्रे सुहृद्वधम् ॥ ८ ॥</p> <p>Thereafter, by the benediction of Jamadagni, Lord Paraśurāma’s mother and brothers immediately came alive and were very happy, as if awakened from sound sleep. Lord Paraśurāma had killed his relatives in accordance with his father’s order <strong>because he was fully aware of his father’s power, austerity and learning.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>But nowhere does this Purana say that this killing was in accordance with dharma. In fact, the <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03116.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mahabharata says</a> this was done out of wrath:</p> <blockquote> <p>And mighty and powerful and of a wrathful turn of mind...</p> </blockquote> <p>Also, Apastamba sutra 1.1.2.19 says:</p> <blockquote> <p>Ācārya adhīnaḥ syād anyatra patanīyebhyaḥ \|\| 19 \|\|</p> <ol start="19"> <li>He shall obey his teacher, except [when ordered to commit] crimes which cause loss of caste.</li> </ol> </blockquote> <p>Killing the mother is a <em>mahapataka</em>, which is worse than a sin which merely causes "loss of caste".</p> <p>And <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc200267.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Manusmriti</a> 4.162 prohibits this killing:</p> <blockquote> <p>He shall not injure his Preceptor, or Teacher or Father, <strong>or mother</strong>, or another elder, or Brāhmaṇas, or Cows, or any persons performing austerities.</p> </blockquote> <p>Moreover, the <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03116.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mahabharata passage</a> here explicitly says that this killing was sinful:</p> <blockquote> <p>sa vavre mātur utthānam asmṛtiṃ ca vadhasya vai \| pāpena tena cāsparśaṃ bhrātṝṇāṃ prakṛtiṃ tathā \|\|</p> <p>He chose for his mother to be brought back to life and forget the killing, non-contact with that sin (for himself), and for his brothers to be brought back to life.</p> </blockquote>
<ul> <li>Manusmriti 2:22-23</li> </ul> <blockquote> <p><strong>But (the tract) between those two mountains (just mentioned), which (extends) as far as the eastern and the western oceans, the wise call Aryavarta (the country</strong> of the Aryans).That land where the black antelope naturally roams, one must know to be fit for the performance of sacrifices; (the tract) <strong>different from that (is) the country of the Mlekkhas (barbarians).</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>As far as I know, whole India is considered as <strong>Aryavarta</strong>as many great sages like Agastya were sages of south India. There are many temples in south India of Lord Shiva and Vishnu.But this verse is now creating confusion in my mind.</p>	38385	38381	0	2	38381	4	Does South India comes within land of mlechhas?	3	38385	<p>No, South India is not the land of mlechhas. Why? Because people possessing vedic knowledge reside in South India also. What is the pramANa for all this? It is Shankara's commentary on brihadaranyaka upanishad 1.3.10.</p> <p><a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc117898.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc117898.html</a></p> <p><strong>Upanishad</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>Verse 1.3.10:</p> <p>सा वा एषा देवतैतासां देवतानाम् पाप्मानम् मृत्युमपहत्य यत्रासां दिशामन्तस्तद्गमयांचकार, तदासां पामनो विन्यदधात्; तस्मान्न जनमियात्, नान्तमियात्, नेत्पाप्मानम् मृत्युमन्ववायानीति ॥ १० ॥</p> <p>sā vā eṣā devataitāsāṃ devatānām pāpmānam mṛtyumapahatya yatrāsāṃ diśāmantastadgamayāṃcakāra, tadāsāṃ pāmano vinyadadhāt; tasmānna janamiyāt, nāntamiyāt, netpāpmānam mṛtyumanvavāyānīti \|\| 10 \|\|</p> <ol start="10"> <li><strong>This deity took away death, the evil of these gods, and carried it to where these quarters end. There it left their evils. Therefore one should not approach a person (of that region), nor go to that region beyond the border, lest one imbibe that evil, death.</strong></li> </ol> </blockquote> <p><strong>Shankara's commentary</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>....What did the vital force do after taking away death, the evil of the gods? It carried it to where these quarters, east and so forth, end. One may question how this was done, since the quarters have no end. <strong>The answer is that it is all right, for the quarters are here conceived as being that stretch of territory which is inhabited by people possessing Vedic knowledge; hence ‘the end of the quarters’ means the country inhabited by people who hold opposite views, as a forest is spoken of as the end of the country.</strong>[15] Carrying them, there it, the deity, vital force, left their evils, the evils of these gods....</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Addendum</strong></p> <p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbuck" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbuck</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Blackbucks are native to the Indian subcontinent</p> </blockquote> <p>Blackbuck is the state animal of Andhra Pradesh.</p> <p><a href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/alarm-bells-ring-for-blackbuck-the-pride-of-state/article24050427.ece/amp/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/alarm-bells-ring-for-blackbuck-the-pride-of-state/article24050427.ece/amp/</a></p> <p>Therefore, Manusmriti is <strong>not</strong> saying that South India is land of mlechchas.</p>
<p>Whenever i try to meditate, my mind wanders in all directions. Random things happen, i feel like that I'm lucid dreaming. I'm just wondering if it is normal to happen or we can control it? Is there any proper way to meditate at one point?</p>	38430	38424	2	2	38424	2	How can one meditate?	3	38430	<p>Meditation is a step by step process and the sadhak (seeker) should start the process with Ashtanga Yoga, the first being Yama and then gradually move on to the next step. </p> <blockquote> <p>If you think that closing the eyes and trying to stop the mind is meditation, then you can try it. But you will not be successful unless you have developed very strong willpower. Without the power of anashakti, vairagya or non-attachment, meditation is very difficult to practise. If you are not attached to the experiences of the senses, ego, buddhi (intellect), chitta (memory) and manas (rational mind), then you can experience spontaneous meditation. However, unless and until that happens you will have to work through the practices systematically, stage by stage.</p> </blockquote> <p>Citing from Dharana Darshan: Yogic, Tantric and Upanishadic Practices of Concentration and Visualization by Swami Niranjanananda Saraswati:</p> <p><strong>Meditative Process</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>Recording to the theory and concept of yoga, meditation X x is a state of mind and consciousness in which there is alertness, dynamism, dissociation of mind and senses, and total concentration. It is definitely not a process to block out events or experiences which are, constantly affecting us. In the Raja Yoga Sutras the process of meditation has been divided into eight stages: (i) yama (self-restraint), niyama (fixed rules), (iii) asana (posture), (iv) pranayama (breath control), (v) pratyahara (sensory withdrawal), (vi) dharana (concentration), (vii) dhyana (meditation) and (viii) samadhi (transcendental consciousness).</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Importance of Concentration in meditation:</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>Concentration is one-pointedness of mind, the ability to hold the awareness of the mind on one point, one place, without wavering. The perfection of concentration leads to meditation. In the state of concentration, the mind is not aware of the external environment or of other peripheral things that surround the object of concentration.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Ability to concentrate</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>Concentration is spoken of in the Katha Upanishad (2:3:11) where it is explained by Yama, the Lord of Death, to Nachiketas, a young seeker:</p> <p>The firm control of the senses and the mind is the yoga of concentration. One must be ever watchful for this yoga is difficult to acquire and easy to lose.</p> </blockquote>
<p>Are there any Mantra, prayer for Good Health of Eyes, Ear, Body_Parts, overall good-health, good nutrition of Body..</p> <p>I tried to search, but all I could find was Mantras for Long life.. What is the point long life without Good health..</p>	38464	38462	6	2	38462	4	Mantras, Prayer for Health?	3	38464	<p>There are some special types of Stotras called <strong>Kavachas</strong> (literally "armours"), where the presiding deity is requested to protect the devotee's various body parts. So, possibly you can take help of them. Recitation of these Kavachas will help increase the well-being of the corresponding body parts.</p> <p>These Kavachams are mostly found in the Tantras. I am giving here two such examples.</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Durga_Kavacham" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>Durga Kavacham</strong></a> <br></li> </ul> <blockquote> <p>Srunu devi pravakshyami Kavacham sarva sidhitham,<br> Padithwa padayithwa cha naro muchyathe sankadath., 1</p> <p>Oh Devi, I am telling you the armour which gets you everything, Reading or making others read, men get rid of all their sorrows.</p> <p>Ajnathwa kavacham devi durga mantram cha yojayeth,<br> Sa cha apnothi balam thasya pancha nagam vrajeth puna., 2</p> <p>If he who does not know, learns this Kavacham, Along with the Durga mantram, He would add to himself the strength, Of the five serpents again.</p> <p>Umadevi sira pathu, lalalde soola dharini,<br> Chakshshi kesari pathu, karnou cha dwara vasini., 3</p> <p><strong>Let Uma devi protect my head, Let my forehead be protected by her who carries the soola, Let the lion protect my eyes, And let her who lives near the gate protect my ears.</strong></p> <p>Sugandha nasike pathu, vadanam sarva dharini,<br> Jihwa chandika devi, greevam soupathrika thadha., 4</p> <p><strong>Let she who is like incense protect my nose, Let she who carries everything protect my face, Let Chandika devi protect my toungue, Let Soupathrika protect my neck.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><br></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Bhuvaneswari_Kavacham" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>Bhuvaneswari Kavacham</strong></a> <br></li> </ul> <blockquote> <p>Sri Shiva uvacha:- Lord Shiva said:-</p> <p>1.Pathakam dahanam nama kavacham sarva kamadham,<br> Srunu Parvathi vakshyami thava snehath prakasitham</p> <p>This which is named as Armour burns sinful crime, And Oh Parvathi, please hear , for I tell you this to exhibit my love towards you.</p> <p>2.Pathakam dhanasyasyaa Sadashiva Rishi smrutha,<br> Chandho anushtup , devatha cha bhuvaneswari prakeerthithaa,<br> Dharma artha kama moksheshu viniyoga prakeerthithaa.</p> <p>For that which burns away crime, the sage is Lord Sadashiva, The meter is Anushtup , the Goddess about which it sings is Bhavaneswari, And it leads to Dharma, wealth , passion and salvation.</p> <p>3.Iym Bheejam may sira pathu , hreem bheejam vadanam mma,<br> Sreem bheejam kati desanthu , sarvangam bhuvaneswari.</p> <p><strong>The root “iym” may protect my head , The root “hreem” may protect my face , The root “Sreem” may protect my waist, And Goddess Bhuvaneswari may protect all my limbs.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><br></p> <p>NOTE:- For the full Stotrams/Kavachams you have to visit the corresponding links. Only portions of them are produced here.</p> <p>Also, I have given here Kavachas related to the Mother Goddess only. That does not mean Kavachas are available for Her only. You can get such Kavachas for all other deities as well. So, choose according to your Ista Devata and recite them.</p> <p>According to a book called Tantrokta Varidhi (I have a hard copy) chanting the following Mantra 18/108 times, in front of an image of Goddess Durga, gives good health among other benefits.</p> <p>The Mantra is from the <a href="https://greenmesg.org/stotras/durga/argala_stotram.php" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Devi Argala Stotra</a> (which is part of the Devi Mahatyam from the Markandeya Purana): <br></p> <blockquote> <p>देहि सौभाग्यमारोग्यं देहि देवि परं सुखम् ।<br> रूपं देहि जयं देहि यशो देहि द्विषो जहि ॥१३॥</p> <p>Dehi Saubhaagyam-Aarogyam Dehi Devi Param Sukham \|<br> Ruupam Dehi Jayam Dehi Yasho Dehi Dvisso Jahi \|\|13\|\|</p> <p>Meaning: 13.1: O Devi, Please Bestow on me Welfare and Prosperity, along with Health and freedom from Diseases; O Devi, Please Give me the Highest Joy, 13.2: O Devi, Please Grant me (Spiritual) Beauty, Please Grant me (Spiritual) Victory, Please Grant me (Spiritual) Glory and Please Destroy my (Inner) Enemies. <br></p> </blockquote> <p>Note that Arogyam means freedom from diseases.</p> <p>As per request, here is an update.</p> <p><a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/15619/which-scriptures-contain-the-verse-arogyam-bhaskarad-ichcheth">This post</a> has a Puranic verse, according to which, for health one needs to specifically pray to Lord Surya.</p> <p>And,one of the most well-known Surya Sloka is found in the <a href="http://totalastrology.50webs.com/navagrahamantras.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Navagraha Stotra</a> (composed by Veda Vyasa): <br></p> <blockquote> <p>Japa Kusuma Samkaasham Kaashya-peyam Mahaa-dyutim<br> Tamorim Sarva-papaghnam Pranatosmin Divakaram \|\|</p> <p>Sun (Soorya-Ravi) I pray to the Sun, the day-maker, destroyer of all sins, the enemy of darkness, of great brilliance, the descendent of Kaashyapa, the one who shines like the japaa flower.</p> </blockquote>
<ul> <li>Manusmriti 12:95 <blockquote> <p>“All those traditions (smriti) and those despicable systems of philosophy, <strong>which are not based on the Veda</strong>, produce no reward after death; for they are declared to be founded on Darkness.”</p> </blockquote></li> </ul> <p>This verse of Manusmriti depicts that Vedas are superior scriptures. But in Mahabharat and puranas it is written that Vedas are inferior than Itihasa and puranas.</p> <p><a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01002.htm" rel="noreferrer">Adiparva 1</a></p> <blockquote> <p>"In former days, having placed the four Vedas on one side and the Bharata on the other, these were weighed in the balance by the celestials assembled for that purpose. <strong>And as the latter weighed heavier than the four Vedas with their mysteries, from that period it hath been called in the world Mahabharata (the great Bharata).</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Mahabharat is superior than Veda as per this shloka. <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-padma-purana/d/doc364122.html" rel="noreferrer">Padma Puran Chapter 2</a> </p> <blockquote> <ol start="49"> <li><p>There is no doubt that he,who, with his senses subdued, would study with proper understanding (even) a part of this, has studied the entire Purāṇa.</p></li> <li><p>He, who knows the four Vedas, along with the Aṅgas (i.e. certain classes of works regarded as auxiliary to the Vedas) and the Upaniṣads and knows the Purāṇa also, is wiser than the one (described above).</p></li> <li><p>One should nourish Veda with Itihāsa and Purāṇas. Veda, thinking ‘he would deceive me’, is afraid of a (person) of little learning.</p></li> </ol> </blockquote> <p>Here it is written that one who know only <em>puranas (Padma Purana)</em> an no Veda or Upanishads is superior than one who know all the vedas and Upanishad. So which scripture is superior? Should we trust on Mahabharat and puranas(That they are superior) aor Manusmriti (That Vedas are superior)?</p>	38604	38600	7	2	38600	3	Are Itihasa and puranas superior than Vedas?	3	38604	<p>For this we have to do comparison of scripture as per the scriptures</p> <ul> <li>Devi Bhagwatam 11:1</li> </ul> <blockquote> <p>Where you will find differences between S’ruti, Smriti and Purânas, accept the words of the S’rutis as final proofs. Wherever Smriti disagrees with the Purânas, know the Smritis more authoritative. And where differences will crop up in the S’rutis themselves, know that Dharma, too, is of two kinds. And where the differences will crop up in the Smritis themselves, consider, then, that different things are aimed at.</p> </blockquote> <p>So as per Puran, smritis are superior. And the verse of Smriti quoted by you says that Vedas are superior so it is clear that Vedas are superior.</p>
<p>My background is not in Advaita, I am from VishiShta Advaita. I read in one of the Upanishad commentaries by Sri Rangaramanuja Muni (who belongs to the Sri Vaishnava fold) that the Advaitins hold that due to avidya, both jivatvam (the quality of being a jiva) as well as aNutvam (atomicity) dawn upon the Brahman. Elsewhere, I read that the Advaitins hold jiva as vibhu as do other earlier schools of thought such as the Tarkikas, the Nayyayikas, and the Vaiseshikas. My question is, do the Advaitins attribute atomicity to jiva as long as Brahman sustains the jivahood? Or, do they not? At what points does this atomicity dawn and leave from Brahman? Are there any pramaNas from the Bhashya of Sri Shankaracharya?</p>	40082	40069	1	2	40069	1	Is the Advaita concept of jiva aNu (atomic) or vibhu (all-pervading)?	3	40082	<p>The 'size' of the soul is discussed in <em>Brahma Sutras</em> Chapter 2, Section 3 Adikarana 13 (II.3.19-32) here with commentary (<a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-sutras" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-sutras</a>):</p> <blockquote> <p>Adhikarana summary: The size of the individual soul</p> <p><strong>19. (As the Sruti texts declare the soul’s) passing out, going (to other spheres) and returning (thence), (the soul is not infinite in size).</strong></p> <p>From this up to Sutra 82 the question of the size of the soul--whether it is atomic, medium-sized or infinite—is discussed. We have in the Svetasvatara Upanishad : “He is the one God . . . all-pervading” (6. 11); and again. “This Atman is atomic” (Mu. 3. 3. 9). The two texts contradict each other and we have to arrive at a decision on the point. Sutras 20-28 set forth the prima facie view. The opponent says, we find in the scriptures texts mentioning the soul’s passing out of the body, going to heaven etc., and returning from there. This is possible only if the soul is atomic, and not infinite or all-pervading; for to an infinite soul there can be no going and coming. Therefore the soul is atomic.</p> <p><strong>20. And the latter two (the going and coming) (being connected) directly with their agent (the soul), (it is of atomic size).</strong></p> <p>Even if the soul is infinite, still it can be spoken of as passing out of the body, if by that term is meant ceasing to be the ruler of the body. But the two latter activities, viz. the going and coming, are not possible for an entity that is all-pervading. So the soul is atomic in size.</p> <p><strong>21. If it be said (that the soul is) not atomic, as the scriptures state it to be otherwise (i.e. all-pervading), (we say) not so, for (the one) other than the individual soul (i.e. Supreme Brahman) is the subject-matter (in those texts).</strong></p> <p>Sruti texts like, “He is the one God . . . all-pervading” (Svet. 6. II), refer not to the individual soul, but to the Supreme Lord, who is other than the individual soul and forms the chief subject-matter of all the Vedanta texts; for that is the one thing that is to be known, and is therefore propounded by all the Vedanta texts.</p> <p><strong>22. And on account of direct statements (of the Sruti texts as to the atomic size) and infinitesimal measure (the soul is atomic).</strong></p> <p>“This Atman is atomic” (Mu. 3. 1. 9). Again we have, “That individual soul is to be known as part of the hundredth part of the tip of a hair divided a hundred times” (Svet. 5. 9), which shows that the soul is smaller than even the smallest. Hence the soul is atomic in size.</p> <p><strong>29. But that declaration (as to the atomic size of the soul) is on account of its having for its essence the qualities of that (viz. the Buddhi), even as the Intelligent Lord (Brahman, which is all-pervading, is declared to be atomic).</strong></p> <p>The word ‘but’ refutes all that has been said in Sutras 19-28, and decides that the soul is all-pervading, because the all-pervading Brahman Itself is said to have entered the universe as the individual soul, which again is stated to be identical with It. How then is the soul declared to be atomic ? Such declarations are on account of its preponderating in the qualities of the Buddhi (intellect) so long as it is imagined to be connected with the latter and in bondage. Passing out, going, and coming are qualities of the Buddhi and are only imputed to the individual soul. For the same reason also, i.e. limitation of the intellect, is the Atman regarded as atomic. It is like imagining the all-pervading Lord as limited for the sake of Upasana, devout meditation.</p> <p><strong>30. And there is no defect (in what has been said in the previous Sutra), (as the conjunction of the soul with the intellect exists) so long as the soul (in its relative aspect) exists: because it is so seen (in the scriptures).</strong></p> <p>An objection might be raised against what has been said in the previous Sutra that since the conjunction of the soul and the intellect, which are different entities, must necessarily come to an end some time, the soul, when so disjoined from the Buddhi, will either cease to exist altogether or at least cease to be a Samsarin (individualized). This Sutra replies : There can be no such defect in the argument of the previous Sutra, for this connection with the intellect lasts so long as the soul’s state of Samsara is not destroyed by the realization of supreme Knowledge. How is this known? It is known from the declaration of the scriptures that even at death this connection is not severed. “This infinite entity that is identified with the intellect .... Assuming the likeness of the intellect it moves between the two worlds, it thinks, as it were, it moves, as it were,” (Brih. 4. 3. 7). The terms “thinks, as it were”, “moves, as it were” also mean that the self does not think and move on its own account, but only through its association with the intellect.</p> </blockquote> <p>Verse 23-28 have been omitted from the above. The verses quoted are the verses most relevant to your question. In verse 22, it says it is the smallest of the smallest, hence 'atomic' in size. The use of the word atomic should not be confused with the modern definition or size of physical atoms as defined by modern physics. The purpose of the verses is not to define a physical dimension to the atman, but rather to convey the idea that the atman is without physical dimensions - 'smallest than the smallest' - infinitesimally small. </p> <p>In the subsequent verses it says how the infinite Brahman is defined as atomic within the individual soul. Many people confuse the word infinite as implying infinite physical space. Brahman is spiritual, not physical. The physical universe is in maya. Infinite space is maya. When thinking of the infinity of Brahman, think of Brahman as That which touches everything - hence infinite. Physical infinity has no meaning to Brahman. Physical infinitude is an aspect of maya. As the verses point out the infinite Brahman is atomic in size. When Brahman 'identifies' Itself with the individual Buddhi, it identifies Itself with the individual soul. Hence the Atman is both anu and vibhu. There is no conflict. The conflict is only an appearance of maya.</p>
<p>Yesterday, I was watching Mahabharata on StarPlus. There Durodhan puts a question that if god has given us mind to think, through which we can desire. Then why working according to our desire is wrong thing.</p> <p>I could not get why he is wrong. </p> <p>Can anyone please guide me the correct way. </p>	40141	40138	1	2	40138	2	Is working according to desire is right dharma	3	40141	<p>Before replying the main issue " Desire", it would be in the fitness of things to give some relevant information. Among few others Karma, Attachment, Desire has been the focal theme of Geeta. Almost all copies of Geeta quote around dozen shlokas under the caption Geeta Mahatmya wherein we find a beautiful analogy of lead characters of Mahabharata . There is the mention of "Duryodhnavartani ".Duryodhan symbolized as intense whorl in a vast river current. Such whorl is powerful enough to capture and destroy anything in its ambit. It in fact implies a totally unstable and turbulent mind. Given this background, the desire of Duryodhan can never be worth accepting as an ideal role model, rather it needs to be shunned and decried. To pursue a desire as done by Duryodhan shall meet the same fate as met by Duryodhan. A lot has been discussed of desire in Geeta, ch 3</p> <p><a href="https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/3/verse/37" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shloka 37</a></p> <p>श्रीभगवानुवाच \| काम एष क्रोध एष रजोगुणसमुद्भव: \|\| महाशनो महापाप्मा विद्ध्येनमिह वैरिणम् \|\| 37\|\| </p> <p>The Supreme Lord said: It is lust alone, which is born of contact with the mode of passion, and later transformed into anger. Know this as the sinful, all-devouring enemy in the world.</p> <p><a href="https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/3/verse/38" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shloka 38</a></p> <p>धूमेनाव्रियते वह्निर्यथादर्शो मलेन च \| यथोल्बेनावृतो गर्भस्तथा तेनेदमावृतम् \|\| 38\|\|</p> <p>Just as a fire is covered by smoke, a mirror is masked by dust, and an embryo is concealed by the womb, similarly one’s knowledge gets shrouded by desire.</p> <p><a href="https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/3/verse/39" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shloka 39</a></p> <p>आवृतं ज्ञानमेतेन ज्ञानिनो नित्यवैरिणा \| कामरूपेण कौन्तेय दुष्पूरेणानलेन च \|\| 39\|\|</p> <p>The knowledge of even the most discerning gets covered by this perpetual enemy in the form of insatiable desire, which is never satisfied and burns like fire, O son of Kunti.</p> <p><a href="https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/3/verse/40" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shlok 40</a></p> <p>इन्द्रियाणि मनो बुद्धिरस्याधिष्ठानमुच्यते \| एतैर्विमोहयत्येष ज्ञानमावृत्य देहिनम् \|\| 40\|\|</p> <p>The senses, mind, and intellect are said to be breeding grounds of desire. Through them, it clouds one’s knowledge and deludes the embodied soul.</p> <p><a href="https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/3/verse/41" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shlok 41</a></p> <p>तस्मात्त्वमिन्द्रियाण्यादौ नियम्य भरतर्षभ \| पाप्मानं प्रजहि ह्येनं ज्ञानविज्ञाननाशनम् \|\| 41\|\|</p> <p>Therefore, O best of the Bharatas, in the very beginning bring the senses under control and slay this enemy called desire, which is the embodiment of sin and destroys knowledge and realization</p> <p><a href="https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/3/verse/42" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shlok 42</a></p> <p>इन्द्रियाणि पराण्याहुरिन्द्रियेभ्य: परं मन: \| मनसस्तु परा बुद्धिर्यो बुद्धे: परतस्तु स: \|\| 42\|\|</p> <p>The senses are superior to the gross body, and superior to the senses is the mind. Beyond the mind is the intellect, and even beyond the intellect is the soul.</p> <p><a href="https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/3/verse/40" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shlok 43</a></p> <p>एवं बुद्धे: परं बुद्ध्वा संस्तभ्यात्मानमात्मना \| जहि शत्रुं महाबाहो कामरूपं दुरासदम् \|\| 43\|\|</p> <p>Thus knowing the soul to be superior to the material intellect, O mighty armed Arjun, subdue the self (senses, mind, and intellect) by the self (strength of the soul), and kill this formidable enemy called lust.</p> <p> and ch4-19, ch 5--23, 26 ch 7 --11. In ch 7 The Lord says to pursue such desires which is in accordance with the tenets of Dharma. Various teachers have explained Dharma as do's and dont's of karma as sanctioned by society in view of time, place, period and situation. I feel this may heip sum up the question relating to desire. With Regards, Hare Krishna. </p>
<p>I was going through the mentioned phrases of Rig Veda and got little confused in different points on creation. In Nasadiya it is mentioned that even creator might don't know about creation. on the other side Rigveda (10.121) mentions the Hiranyagarbha ("golden embryo") as the source of the creation of the Universe.</p> <p>Help me in understanding.</p> <p><a href="http://mesosyn.com/myth2h-4.html" rel="noreferrer">Source</a></p>	40383	40362	7	2	40362	6	contradiction between Nasadiya Sukta and Hiranyagarbha	3	40383	<p>I agree that most of translation of Nasadiya Sukta concludes that " he knows - or <strong>maybe even he does not know</strong>." </p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_veda/naasadiiya.html?lang=sa" rel="noreferrer">Rigveda 10.129.7</a> Whence all creation had its origin, he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not, he, who surveys it all from highest heaven, he knows - or maybe even he does not know.</p> </blockquote> <p>However another interpretation I found for this line is <strong>No other than him does know it completely (only he knows)</strong>.</p> <h3>According to Sayana Bhashya</h3> <p>The most followed Bhashya (commentary) on Vedas are of <strong>Sayanacharya</strong>'s. I do not have English or Hindi translation of Sayanacharya's Sanskrit commentary on Rigveda, neither I am a Sanskrit expert but still trying to interpret/conclude with reference to <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/17420/277">Sayanacharya's original Sanskrit commentary</a>:</p> <p>Read <a href="https://archive.org/details/RgVedaWithSayanasCommentaryPart4/page/n889/mode/1up" rel="noreferrer">this page</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/eNSNT.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/eNSNT.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p> </blockquote> <ul> <li><p>Here the (red) underlined text interprets the bottom line of the verse of Rigveda:</p> <blockquote> <p>यदि वा न वेद न जानाति । को नाम अन्यो जानियात् ।</p> </blockquote> <p>Which <strong>को नाम अन्यो जानियात्</strong> means <strong>who is other that knows</strong> or who other knows (A Sanskrit scholar can confirm this meaning).</p></li> <li><p>The (green) underlined text explains further that <strong>only Omniscient Ishwar knows the creation, no other. that is what meant.</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>सर्वज्ञ ईश्वर एव तां सृष्टिं जानियात् नान्य इत्यर्थ: ।</p> </blockquote></li> </ul> <p>So, it can be concluded that the interpretation is only he does know, no other.</p> <hr> <h3>According to Dayananda Saraswati</h3> <p>To support or verify this interpretation, I am quoting the <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/21707/277">commentary of Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Aryasamaja</a> whose interpretations of Vedas are also considerably followed</p> <p>Quoting from <a href="http://www.aryasamajjamnagar.org/rugveda_v5/pages/p1102.gif" rel="noreferrer">Aryasamaj Rigveda Bhashya</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/wywTI.gif" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/wywTI.gif" alt="enter image description here"></a></p> </blockquote> <p>Here underlined text is in Hindi which translates in English as follows:</p> <blockquote> <p>Only Parameshwara knows it completely, others don't know it completely</p> </blockquote> <p>You may also read English version from <a href="https://www.elibrary.thearyasamaj.org/book/rig-veda--volume-iv#book_reader/1071" rel="noreferrer">Book by Dr. Tulsi Ram</a>.</p> <hr> <h3>According to Subodha Bhashya</h3> <p>Yet another commentary I am citing is <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/36997/277">Rigveda Subodha (Hindi) Bhashya by Damadoar Saatvalekar</a>:</p> <p>You may refer <a href="https://archive.org/details/RigvedaSamhitaPartVIIAryaSahityaMandirAjmer1931/page/n595/mode/1up" rel="noreferrer">this page</a> from Internet Archive:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/JSUx2m.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/JSUx2m.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p> </blockquote> <p>Here underlined Hindi bhashya translates in English as follows:</p> <blockquote> <p>O scholar! That Tattva (who creates) knows these all even whether others don't know</p> </blockquote>
<p>Does taking non-vegetarian food prevent us from becoming spiritual and getting salvation?</p>	41168	40781	4	2	40781	3	Does consuming non-vegetarian food hinder our spiritual progress?	3	41168	<p>I have found some scriptures of what they say about eating non-vegetarian from a <a href="https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-Hindu-holy-books-say-about-eating-meat" rel="nofollow noreferrer">vlog</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><em><strong>Anumantaa vishasitaa nihantaa krayavikrayee Samskartaa chopahartaa cha khadakashcheti ghaatakaah</strong></em> <strong>: Manusmrithi 5.51</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Those who permit slaying of animals, those who bring animals for slaughter, those who slaughter, those who sell meat, those who purchase meat, those who prepare dish out of it, those who serve that meat and those who eat are all murderers.</p> <blockquote> <p><em><strong>Breehimattam yavamattamatho maashamatho tilam Esha vaam bhaago nihito ratnadheyaaya dantau maa hinsishtam pitaram maataram cha</strong></em> <strong>: Atharvaveda 6.140.2</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>O teeth! You eat rice, you eat barley, you gram and you eat sesame. These cereals are specifically meant for you. Do not kill those who are capable of being fathers and mothers.</p> <blockquote> <p><em><strong>Aghnyaa yajamaanasya pashoonpahi</strong></em> <strong>: Yajurveda 1.1</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>“O human! animals are 'Aghnya' – not to be killed. Protect the animals”</p> <blockquote> <p><em><strong>Mahabharata:</strong></em></p> </blockquote> <p>"He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures, lives in misery in whatever species he may take his [next] birth." <em>(Mahabharata, Anu.115.47)</em></p> <p>So there's no specific texts I could find where we can conclude that we cannot get <em>Moksha</em>, but yes our texts seem to indirectly point out that its a sin.</p> <p>But yes some texts also say that one can still be a good devotee if he consumes meat. I would suggest to read <em><strong>KulArnava Tantram, Chapter 5, Verse 45</strong></em> which specifies that Lord Shiva doesnot accept the consumption of meat unless its a part of a ritual. This one:</p> <blockquote> <p><em><strong>Pitridevatayajneshu VaidahimsA Vidhiyate \| AtmArtham PrAninAm HimsA kadAchinnoditA Priye \|\|</strong></em></p> </blockquote> <p>In Pitru Yanjna and Deva Yajnas sacrificial killing is allowed. But other than that the Shastras never allow prani himsa (killing) for one's own pleasure.</p> <p>So one can still be a devotee but as I said, our texts seem to indirectly point that its a sin(that's what I think).</p>
<p>In our scriptures, there are plenty of sages like Durvasa who were very aggressive. They cursed many people on very small mistakes. He cursed King Abarisha just because he had some water before Durvasa came back because it was important to break the fast at the right time. He cursed all the gods because Airavat crushed the Garland of Durvasa.(Read about these curses <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/16180/19001">here.</a>). Not only Durvasa but there were many other sages like Vishwamitra who plotted to kill sons of Vashistha without there fault. Remember what Lord Krishna said in Gita.</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>दु:खेष्वनुद्विग्नमना: सुखेषु विगतस्पृह: \| वीतरागभयक्रोध: स्थितधीर्मुनिरुच्यते \|\|</strong></p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Bhagwad Gita 2.56: One <strong>whose mind remains undisturbed</strong> amidst misery, who does not crave for pleasure, and who is free from attachment, fear, and <strong>anger</strong>, is called a sage of steady wisdom.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Are these sages true sages?</strong></p>	41041	40866	4	2	40866	4	Are aggressive sages like Durvasa not true sages?	3	41041	<p>There are 3 methods of adoring the Almighty, as far as I understood.</p> <ol> <li><p>Performing religious rituals, as laid down in Sastras, offering prayers at prescribed times, following Dharmic way of life - ritualistic life.- Example: Dasaratha, Yudhisthira, etc.</p> </li> <li><p>Performing tantric rituals, as laid down in tantra texts, undergoing severe austerities, if necessary by performing various Homas, which are prohibited by Vedic way of life (dakshinachAra), for achieving powers in a shortest possible period - Example: Ravana, Indrajit, etc.</p> </li> <li><p>Performing severe austerities, with a view to obtaining SELF REALISATION. Example: Sage Vasistha, Sage Viswamitra, Sri Ramana Maharshi, etc.</p> </li> </ol> <hr /> <p>Sage Durvasa, Sage Viswamitra, etc, fall into the 3rd Category.</p> <p>However, we have to understand that there will be different stages/phases in one's life, even in the lives of sages.</p> <hr /> <p>Sage Viswamitra did not become a brahmarshi overnight.</p> <ul> <li><p>After performing <a href="https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/baala/sarga57/bala_57_frame.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">one thousand years</a> of ascesis in Southern side, he was declared as a Kingly-rishi . The episode of wasting of his ascetic power on Trishanku happened at this juncture</p> </li> <li><p>After performing austerities for <a href="https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/baala/sarga63/bala_63_frame.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">one thousand years</a> in Western side, he had become a rAjarshi. The incident of rescuing Shunashepa and enjoying conjugal bliss with Menaka (10 years) happened then.</p> </li> <li><p>After performing austerities for one thousand years in Northern side, he was conferred with <a href="https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/baala/sarga63/bala_63_frame.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Supremacy among Sages</a>.</p> </li> <li><p>Another thousand years were spent in austerities. <a href="https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/baala/sarga64/bala_64_frame.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cursing of Rambha</a> happened then , wasting his austerity power.</p> </li> <li><p>After performing austerities for one thousand years in Eastern side, he had to forgo <a href="https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/baala/sarga65/bala_65_frame.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">his meal</a> to Indra, which he did without murmur.</p> </li> <li><p>Again <a href="https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/baala/sarga65/bala_65_frame.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">spending another 1000 years</a>, he became brahmarshi.</p> </li> </ul> <hr /> <p>So occurrence of pitfalls while performing austerities are common in the lives of most of the sages. It never indicates they are fake sages, but indicates various phases of pitfalls and rising up again.</p> <p>They are sages, without doubt.</p>
<p>Chanakya remarks - "Dharma" & "Kama" both depend on "Artha". Could you please explain how Dharma & Kama depend on Artha? What does Chanakya imply with this statement? Also, "Dharma" has multiple meanings in Sanskrit so in which sense is it used here? what is the meaning of "Dharma" here?<br /> And, what is the message/lesson/teaching Chanakya conveying through this?</p> <p>I would be grateful if you could share your insights on this. Also, if you have something more to share in connection to this, please do so.</p>	41111	41103	5	2	41103	6	What does Chanakya impliy when he says "Dharma" and "Kama" depends on "Artha"? How do the two depend on Artha?	3	41111	<p>The interdependence between the dharma (virtue), artha (wealth) and kama (pleasure) can be understood well form the words of Bhimasena in <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/maha/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mahabharata</a>. Note that the words of Chanakya are <em>mainly intended for a Kshatriya</em> and hence my answer is.</p> <p>I will divide my answer into two parts. First part addresses the dependence of dharma on artha and the second part addresses the dependence of kama on artha</p> <h2>#1: Dependence of dharma on artha:</h2> <p>Artha is a requisite for Dharma. Dharma exists in multiple forms. In general, (for Kshetriya), sacrifices, respecting guests, charity etc., are the highest virtues and are possible to do only by wealth. Thus several kinds of dharma cannot be performed without artha.</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Gift, sacrifice, respect for the wise, study of the Vedas, and honesty, these, O king, constitute the highest virtue and are efficacious both here and hereafter. These virtues, however, cannot be attained by one that hath no wealth, even if, O tiger among men, he may have infinite other accomplishments. The whole universe, O king, dependeth upon virtue. There is nothing higher than virtue. And virtue, O king, is attainable by one that hath plenty of wealth</strong>. Wealth cannot be earned by leading a mendicant life, nor by a life of feebleness. Wealth, however, can be earned by intelligence directed by virtue. In thy case, O king, begging, which is successful with Brahmanas, hath been forbidden. Therefore, O bull amongst men, strive for the acquisition of wealth by exerting thy might and energy. Neither mendicancy, nor the life of a Sudra is what is proper for thee. Might and energy constitute the virtue of the Kshatriya in especial.</p> </blockquote> <h2>#2: Dependence of Kama on artha:</h2> <p>Kama can be acquired by artha, as well as dharma. (Internal) Pleasure can be obtained by the person who performs dharma, which needs wealth (#1) . (External) Pleasure can be obtained from the five senses using the objects of enjoyment, which also needs wealth to gain them.</p> <blockquote> <p>Destitute of virtue and wealth such a man, indulging in pleasure at will, at the expiration of his period of indulgence, meeteth with certain death, like a fish when the water in which it liveth hath been dried up. It is for these reasons that they that are <strong>wise are ever careful of both virtue and wealth, for a union of virtue and wealth is the essential requisite of pleasure, as fuel is the essential requisite of fire. Pleasure hath always virtue for its root, and virtue also is united with pleasure. Know, O monarch, that both are dependent on each other like the ocean and the clouds, the ocean causing the clouds and the clouds filling the ocean. The joy that one feeleth in consequence of contact with objects of touch or of possession of wealth, is what is called pleasure</strong>. It existeth in the mind, having no corporeal existence that one can see. ........ And, O king, as a fowler killeth the birds we see, so doth sin slay the creatures of the world. He, therefore, who misled by pleasure or covetousness, beholdeth not the nature of virtue, deserveth to be slain by all, and becometh wretched both here and here-after. <strong>It is evident, O king, that thou knowest that pleasure may be derived from the possession of various objects of enjoyment.</strong> Thou also well knowest their ordinary states, as well as the great changes they undergo. At their loss or disappearance occasioned by decrepitude or death, ariseth what is called distress. That distress, O king, hath now overtaken us. The joy that ariseth from the five senses, the intellect and the heart, being directed to the objects proper to each, is called pleasure. That pleasure, O king, is, as I think, one of the best fruits of our actions.</p> </blockquote> <p>In fact, the three are interdependent for Kshetriyas.</p> <blockquote> <p>Thus, O monarch, <strong>one should regard virtue, wealth and pleasure one after another. One should not devote one self to virtue alone, nor regard wealth as the highest object of one's wishes, nor pleasure, but should ever pursue all three. The scriptures ordain that one should seek virtue in the morning, wealth at noon, and pleasure in the evening. The scriptures also ordain that one should seek pleasure in the first portion of life, wealth in the second, and virtue in the last. And, O thou foremost of speakers, they that are wise and fully conversant with proper division of time, pursue all three, virtue, wealth, and pleasure, dividing their time duly</strong>. O son of the Kuru race, whether independence of these (three), or their possession is the better for those that desire happiness, should be settled by thee after careful thought. And thou shouldst then, O king, unhesitatingly act either for acquiring them, or abandoning them all. For he who liveth wavering between the two doubtingly, leadeth a wretched life. It is well known that thy behaviour is ever regulated by virtue. Knowing this thy friends counsel thee to act.</p> </blockquote> <p>All the words of Bhimasena are taken from the <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03033.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[section 38, Arjunabhigamana Parva, Vana Parva, The Mahabharata]</a></p>
<p>Recently, the Prime Minister of Nepal K.P. Sharma Oli said that the <code>real Ayodhya</code> lies at Thori in the west of Birgunj(in <strong>Nepal</strong>), and also he added that Lord Ram wasn’t born in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.</p> <p>It has been found that such statements have been made on the basis of a book that is about to be published. In that book, the author mentions the evidence that Ram's birthplace 'real Ayodhya' belongs to Nepal.</p> <p>The arguments mentioned in that book were written on <a href="https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2020/07/881784" rel="noreferrer">local online newspaper in Nepal</a> and I have translated and posted the same news here.</p> <p>The biggest argument given by the author in that book is the distance between the present <strong>Valmiki Ashram</strong> and <strong>Ayodhya</strong>.</p> <p>The distance between <strong>Ayodhya</strong> and <strong>Valmiki Ashram</strong> is about <strong>300 kilometers</strong>. In the <strong>Ramayana</strong>, it is mentioned that Laxman left Sita at the Valmiki Ashram and returned the same day. The author argues that at that time, it was not possible to return to Ayodhya from the Valmiki Ashram, which was 600 km away. So, on that basis author claims that <strong>Ayodhyapuri</strong> is only <strong>17 kilometers</strong> away from <strong>Valmiki Ashram</strong>, Ram's birthplace is Ayodhyapuri in Nepal.</p> <p>Another argument that the authors claim is about the birthplace of Ramayana which is written as Ayodhyapuri in Ramayana. According to Valmiki Ramayana, Rama was born in Ayodhyapuri. However, Ayodhya of India is not called Ayodhyapuri but it is called only Ayodhya. Therefore, the authors argued that this Ayodhyapuri was in Ayodhyapuri VDC of the then Nepal.</p> <p>Authors have also analyzed it on the basis of distance from <strong>Sita's birthplace</strong> <strong>Janakpur</strong> to <strong>Ayodhya</strong>. The direct distance between <strong>Sita's birthplace</strong> <strong>Janakpur</strong> and Ayodhya(in <strong>India</strong>) is more than <strong>five hundred kilometers</strong>. It is mentioned in Ramayana that the marriage procession arrived in Janakpur on the same day for <strong>Rama's wedding</strong>. The author argues that it is not believable and possible to come to <strong>Janakpur</strong> in one day by chariot from present <strong>Ayodhya which is 500 km away</strong>.</p> <p>The claims made by the Prime Minister that Ram's birthplace is in <strong>Nepal</strong> were based on the above-mentioned argument.</p> <p>The author's arguments appear to have been analyzed solely on the basis of physical distance and time of arrival and departure, and these arguments appear to be unsubstantiated. Those arguments contradict the tradition of ‘Bibaha Panchami’, marked by the arrival of a marriage procession from Ayodhya, India, to Janakpur in Nepal, which is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram’s wife Sita.</p> <p>What else could be wrong with the author's argument? What other arguments from Ramayana and other books can disprove the claim made by the authors? Is the author's argument based upon the fact and correct evidence?</p>	41167	41152	6	2	41152	4	Where does the `real Ayodhya` lies and where does the Lord Ram born?	4	41167	<blockquote> <p><strong>The distance between Ayodhya and Valmiki Ashram is about 300 kilometers. In the Ramayana, it is mentioned that Laxman left Sita at the Valmiki Ashram and returned the same day. The author argues that at that time, it was not possible to return to Ayodhya from the Valmiki Ashram, which was 600 km away. So, on that basis author claims that Ayodhyapuri is only 17 kilometers away from Valmiki Ashram, Ram's birthplace is Ayodhyapuri in Nepal.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>First of all, I didn't found any description like this in uttarkanda. And another thing is that units like <em>Kilometer</em> were not used in Ancient texts. They used units like <em>Yojana</em>. There is not a fixed value of <em>Yojana</em>. <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yojana" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wkipedia</a> also describes about the variations in value of <em>yojana</em> from time to time. So we don't know what was the real value the unit used to describe the distance between Ayodhya and Valmiki ashrama.</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Another argument that the authors claim is about the birthplace of Ramayana which is written as Ayodhyapuri in Ramayana. According to Valmiki Ramayana, Rama was born in Ayodhyapuri. However, Ayodhya of India is not called Ayodhyapuri but it is called only Ayodhya. Therefore, the authors argued that this Ayodhyapuri was in Ayodhyapuri VDC of the then Nepal.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Word <em>Puri</em> is a Sanskrit word which mean city. It was not a special word associated with any city. <em>Puri</em> can be used with the name of any city e.g. City of Janaka was called <em>Janakpuri</em> means <strong>city of Janaka</strong>. Real name of Jankapuri was <em>Mithila</em> as given in Ramayana . See <a href="https://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?mode=3&tran_input=%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80&script=hk&anz=100&direct=au" rel="nofollow noreferrer">dictionary.</a> <a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/4A7FR.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/4A7FR.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p> <p>In Ramayana too, <em>Puri</em> was used as city.</p> <blockquote> <p>गतेषु पृथिवीशेषु राजा दशरथस्तदा \| प्रविवेश <strong>पुरीं</strong> श्रीमान् पुरस्कृत्य द्विजोत्तमान् \|\|</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>On the departure of visiting kings, then that fortunate king Dasharatha entered the <strong>city</strong> Ayodhya, keeping eminent Brahman priests ahead of him in the procession. [1-18-5]</p> </blockquote> <p><em>Puri</em> was also used with Lanka.</p> <blockquote> <p>इतो द्वीपे समुद्रस्य संपूर्णे शत योजने \| तस्मिन् <strong>लंका पुरी</strong> रम्या निर्मिता विश्वकर्मणा \|\| ४-५८-२०</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>"There is a lavish city in the oceanic island afar a hundred yojana-s all in all from here, which Vishvakarma, the Divine-Architect, has built, and it is called Lanka. [4-58-20]</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p><strong>Authors have also analyzed it on the basis of distance from Sita's birthplace Janakpur to Ayodhya. The direct distance between Sita's birthplace Janakpur and Ayodhya(in India) is more than five hundred kilometers. It is mentioned in Ramayana that the marriage procession arrived in Janakpur on the same day for Rama's wedding. The author argues that it is not believable and possible to come to Janakpur in one day by chariot from present Ayodhya which is 500 km away.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Nowhere in Ramayana, it is written that Marriage procession arrived Janakpuri on same day. Dashratha had to travel 4 days for reaching videha.</p> <blockquote> <p>गत्वा चतुरहं मार्गं विदेहानभ्युपेयिवान् \| राजा तु जनकः श्रीमान् श्रुत्वा पूजामकल्पयत् \|\| १-६९-७</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p><strong>Travelling on a four-day-route Dasharatha reached the fringes of Videha kingdom</strong>, and on hearing this, the illustrious king Janaka arranged for welcome ceremonies at the outskirts of the city. [1-69-7]</p> </blockquote> <h1>Geographical location of Ayodhya</h1> <p>In <strong>Valmiki Ramayana 1:5</strong> it described that Kosala Kingdom and Ayodhya was on the bank of Saryu river.</p> <blockquote> <p>कोसलो नाम मुदितः स्फीतो जनपदो महान् \| निविष्टः सरयूतीरे प्रभूतधनधान्यवान् \|\| १-५-५</p> <p>अयोध्या नाम नगरी तत्रासील्लोकविश्रुता \| मनुना मानवेन्द्रेण या पुरी निर्मिता स्वयम् \|\| १-५-६</p> <p>A great kingdom named Kosala, a joyous and a vast one well flourishing with monies and cereals, <strong>is snugly situated on the riverbanks of Sarayu. A world-renowned city is Ayodhya</strong> there in that kingdom, which is personally built by Manu, the foremost ruler of mankind.</p> </blockquote> <p>Ayodhya situated on bank of Saryu is in Uttar Pradesh, India which is the real birth place of Lord Rama.</p>
<p>Actually, I do not deeply understand this quote given below.</p> <blockquote> <p>“Attachment is the strongest block to realization.” <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neem_Karoli_Baba" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Neem Karoli Baba</a></p> </blockquote> <p>What is the exact meaning of this quote by Neem Karoli Baba?</p>	41166	41161	6	2	41161	7	What is the exact meaning of this quote by Neem Karoli Baba?	3	41166	<p>Have a look at the following verse: <br></p> <blockquote> <p>Dve pade vandhamokshAya mameti nirmameti cha \|<br> Mameti vAdyate janturna nirmameti vimuchyate \|\|</p> <p><em>Mama</em> (Mine) and <em>Nir-Mama</em> (Not Mine) - These two words are respectively the indicators of Bandhana (bondage due to illusion) and Moksha (liberation from bondage). <strong>The thought "Mine" binds the Jiva, but the thought "Not-Mine" liberates it.</strong></p> <p><strong>KulArnava Tantram 1.112</strong></p> </blockquote> <br> <p>So, what Lord Shiva says is that the thoughts like "my car", "my house", "my wife", "my son" etc. (which all imply attachment or Bandhana) are the thoughts that bind the Jiva and prevent him from getting Moksha (self-realization).</p> <p>On the other hand, the thoughts of "not mine" which are devoid of attachments of any sorts, are the giver of realization or Moksha.</p> <p>And, exactly the same thing is being said by Neem Karoli Baba.</p> <p>People who think they genuinely owns something are still in the clutches of Maya and hence the road to realization for them is still blocked. This is what has been stated in various scriptures. And, this is what Neem Karoli Baba has said.</p>
<p>I was reading <em>Srimad Bhagavatam</em> with Srila Prabhupada's translation/commentary when I came upon verse 4.4.17:</p> <blockquote> <p>Sati continued: If one hears an irresponsible person blaspheme the master and controller of religion, he should block his ears and go away if he is unable to punish him. But if one is able to kill, then one should by force cut out the blasphemer's tongue and kill the offender, and after that he should give up his own life.</p> </blockquote> <p>Now, notice that there is no mention of the word "kill" in the word-to-word translation of the verse:</p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qk2Do.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qk2Do.png" alt="Word-by-Word Translation of Verse 4.4.17" /></a></p> <p>Obviously, that means the extra words are his own commentary mixed with the translation. However, it is evident that the <em>Bhagavatam</em> mentions cutting off a miscreant's tongue by force if one has the ability. So, <strong>is a devotee supposed to cut off the tongue of someone who insults Vishnu or his devotees?</strong> If so, what is the moral justification for this practice, and how would it be implemented in this age?</p> <p>Another point to mention is the part about suicide. Is it required, and isn't it too extreme? Are there any similar verses (with a proper translation)?</p>	42393	42392	5	2	42392	13	Does Vaishnavism ordain one to cut the tongue of a blasphemer?	3	42393	<p>The passage you quoted in your question is from Shreemad Bhagavata Maha Purana 4.4.17 and it says that "one should by force cut out the blasphemer's tongue and kill the offender". And your enquiry is about "does Vaishnavism ordains one to the cut-the tongue of a blasphemer? "</p> <p>The answer is No. Not only Vaishnavism but none of the sects of Hinduism advocate or endorse such an act, nor such a thing is said anywhere in Hinduism scriptures.</p> <p><strong>Your quote is a classical case of what is called cherry-picking</strong> the saying of gods and applying that in the human context. In this case, this sentence is said by Sati the wife of Supreme Lord Shiva himself, Sati is a goddess. Now let's see in which real context the above passage is narrated by Vyasa in the Bhagavata Purana. The <a href="https://archive.org/details/BhagavataPuranaMotilalEnglish" rel="noreferrer"><strong>Chapter 4.4.17</strong></a> is about Daksha yajna and goddess Sati's self-immolation in that when Daksha here father and other gods insulted lord Shiva at that time. Daksha Prajapati the father of Sati and father in law of Lord Shiva was not good at Lord Shiva.</p> <hr> Then goddess sati in anger spoke to Daksha her father and said the above. Note that she was addressing the Daksha and the gods present there and not to Vaishnava devotees nor to us humans. Seeing that her husband is insulted she advocated lord Shivas auspiciousness. So we have to look at the passage from the context of the storyline and not in the general sense. Sati was furious at that time because her husband Shiva was insulted in front of all the gods, She is not ordering or asking to do this act either Lord Visnu's or Lord Shiva's devotees, but just in anger in order to convey that insulting lord Shiva in such a way is great sin and the sinner should be punished in such away (by a powerful man or god) only i.e. who do have the authority to do so and not by all. She is also saying a devotee if unable to do so should lay down his own life in honour of Lord Shiva. <hr> <p><strong>So all this passage should be understood from the point of view of Daksha yajna and goddess Sati's self-immolation. And not to take the word in the literal sense, this is not the order of gods, but just the angry words of goddess Sati as she was in a rage. Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma is the most tolerant religion and no sect follow such thing. We can also see that many times god himself took avatar to kill sinful humans that does not mean that Hinduism ordains such act.</strong></p>
<p>Rig Veda <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv02001.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">II.1</a> states that there is only one Brahman, though attributed different epithets like <em>Indra</em>, <em>Vishnu</em>, <em>Rudra</em>, etc., to denote different actions of the same Almighty. The same was reiterated in <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv01164.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RV I.164.46</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>एकं सद विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं</p> <p>ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ</p> <p>Though it is One, inspired poets speak of it in many ways</p> </blockquote> <p>The Puranas on the other hand eulogise Vishnu, Shiva, etc, by deification, and demean Indra even though according to Vedas, <em>Indra</em> was an epithet much like <em>Vishnu</em> and <em>Rudra</em>.</p> <p>So is it fair to say movements like Vaishnavism, Shaivism, etc., which encouraged sectarian attitude, are contrary to Rig Vedic principles, therefore, anti-Hindu or anti-Sanatana Dharma?</p>	42470	42469	2	2	42469	4	Are Vaishnavism, Shaivism, etc., which encouraged sectarian attitude, contrary to Rig Vedic principles, therefore, anti-Hindu or anti-Sanatana Dharma?	3	42470	<p>It is certainly correct to say that Vedas do not espouse a hierarchy of the Devas. There is no superior or inferior deity in the Vedas, as seen in RV 1.164.46, which you have mentioned.</p> <p>Similarly, RV 5.59.6:</p> <blockquote> <p>अज्येष्ठा ... अकनिष्ठासः ... अमध्यमासो <br><br> They have no elder, younger or middling members</p> </blockquote> <p>Also, RV 10.72.4:</p> <blockquote> <p>अदितेर्दक्षो अजायत दक्षाद्वदितिः परि <br><br> From Aditi was born Daksha, and from Daksha was born Aditi</p> </blockquote> <p>RV 10.72.5:</p> <blockquote> <p>यद्देवा अदः सलिले सुसंरब्धा अतिष्ठत । अत्रा वो नृत्यतामिव तीव्रो रेणुरपायत ॥<br><br> When the Devas well-connected, stood under the water, their dance stirred up intense dust.</p> </blockquote> <p>Also, Niruktam 7.4:</p> <blockquote> <p>... इतरेतरजन्मानो भवन्ति इतरेतरप्रकृतयः ...<br><br> They are born from one another, their nature or characteristics is shared</p> </blockquote> <p>So, keeping the above deep philosophy in mind, if we look at the Puranas, when Vishnu is praised as the highest and Shiva is shown as worshiping Vishnu, in reality Shiva is worshiping himself. And vice versa.</p> <p>Then why do such partial "sectarian" Puranas exist? The thought process can be gleaned from the great poet Bhartrhari's verse:</p> <blockquote> <p>महेश्वरे वा जगतामधीश्वरे जनार्दने वा जगदन्तरात्मनि ।<br> न वस्तुभेदप्रपत्तिरस्ति मे तथापि भक्तिस्तरुणेन्दुशेखरे ॥<br><br> I do not see a metaphysical difference between Maheshvara, the Overlord of the universe, or Janardana, the Inner Soul of the universe. Still, my devotion is to the Carrier of the crescent moon (i.e. Shiva)."</p> </blockquote> <p>It is the idea that among a roster of equivalent deities, we choose one that we connect with emotionally as our इष्टदेवता (iShTadevatA), our preferred deity.</p> <p>So from the point of view of the scriptures, single Puranas are partial or "incomplete". Hence, all the Puranas and Itihasas are lumped together as "<em><strong>itihAsapurANam</strong></em>", because the Vaishnava and Shaiva Puranas complement each other, and when studied together, they "neutralize" each other and we get a neutral vision of reality.</p> <p>From the point of view of practical faiths, Vaishnavism and Shaivism are just equivalent, because they both say that their favorite deity is the Brahman.</p>
<p>I am currently reading Bibek Debroy's translation of the Mahabharata. In Volume 1, Section 5; Garuda asks his mother what he should eat, and his mother replies,</p> <blockquote> <p>The nishadas have their excellent home in a remote part of the ocean. <strong>Eat thousands of nishadas</strong> and bring back the amrita. But never set your mind on killing a Brahmana.</p> </blockquote> <p>I cannot help but find this disgusting. I am aware the Mahabharata was created over a period of a thousand years, so attitudes towards the nishadas may have changed. I also read how Garuda let a brahmana and his nishada wife escape, so I imagine the attitude towards the nishadas at the time was not genocidal as long as they assimilate. However, I am still disgusted by the fact that Garuda is eating the nishadas in order to satiate his hunger.</p> <p>If an activist were to point this episode out, how would one defend Hinduism?</p>	42494	42487	4	2	42487	-2	How can Garuda eating Nishadas be justified?	3	42494	<p>The Story of Garuda, as mentioned in Mahabharata, has roots in Rig Veda.</p> <p>In <a href="http://vedicheritage.gov.in/samhitas/rigveda/shakala-samhita/rigveda-shakala-samhita-mandal-04-sukta-026/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rig Veda IV.26.5-6</a>, bringing of Soma by a swift falcon was mentioned.</p> <p>This hymn was dedicated to Indra and rishi was Vāmadeva Gautama.</p> <blockquote> <p>भर॒द् यदि॒ विरतो॒ वेवि॑जानः प॒थोरुणा॒ मनो॑जवा असर्जि । तूयं॑ ययौ॒ मधु॑ना सो॒म्येनो॒त श्रवो॑ विविदे श्ये॒नो अत्र॑ ॥५॥</p> <p>ऋ॒जी॒पी श्ये॒नो दद॑मानो अं॒शुं प॑रा॒वत॑: शकु॒नो म॒न्द्रं मद॑म् । सोमं॑ भरद् दादृहा॒णो दे॒वावा॑न् दि॒वो अ॒मुष्मा॒दुत्त॑रादा॒दाय॑ ॥६॥</p> <ol start="5"> <li><p>When he brought it from there, quivering (in fear), <strong>the bird, swift as thought,</strong> was sent surging along the wide path. <strong>He traveled swiftly with the somian honey,</strong> and the <strong>falcon</strong> found fame here.</p> </li> <li><p>Flying straight, the falcon, the bird, hanging onto the plant, brought from afar the gladdening, exhilarating drink, the soma, holding it frmly, having the gods on his side, <strong>having taken it from yonder high heaven.</strong></p> </li> </ol> </blockquote> <hr /> <p>This Rig Vedic tale, is to be understood in esoteric sense, Indra or BRAHMAN delivering the sweet and everlasting BLISS emanating out of SELF REALISATION.</p> <p>Later this falcon was mentioned as Garutman in Rig Veda I.164.46.</p> <hr /> <p>In Ramayana, there was a mention of the birth of Aruna and Garuda as the sons of Vinata. However, the curse of Aruna to Vinata, the consequence of which she became slave of Kadru was not mentioned in Ramayana.</p> <blockquote> <p>कद्रूर् नाग सहस्रम् तु विजज्ञे धरणीधरन् \| द्वौ पुत्रौ विनतायाः तु गरुडो अरुण एव च \|\| ३-१४-३२</p> <p>"Kadru gave birth to a thousand-headed serpent who is the bearer of this earth, and Vinata gave birth to two sons namely Garuda and Aruna.</p> </blockquote> <hr /> <p>Later in Puranas and in interpolated areas of Mahabharata the tale was converted into Garuda bringing Amrita from Heaven for the sake of his mother.</p> <p>While converting the tale into this story, the poet who added this interpolated story into Mahabharata (but not Sage Vyasa), injected the aversion the people of his times had towards nishadas.</p> <p>Please don't be mislead with the interpolated stories. It is not from <a href="https://archive.org/details/jaya_samhita_the_ur_mahabharata_introduction_kk_shastri/mode/1up" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Original version of Jaya Samhita</a> of Sage Vyasa.</p> <p>So eating of thousands of nishadas by Garuda is an interpolated story and <em><strong>not to be relied upon.</strong></em></p>
<p>I only chant <code>om suryay namah</code> but now I want to learn complete mantras while giving arghya to Surya and should we also chant the Gayatri mantra? As a Brahmana (Brahmin) what else should I do beside praying to God Surya in the morning?</p>	42548	42547	5	2	42547	5	What are the correct mantras while giving arghya to Surya?	4	42548	<p>In Bhavishya Purana a lot is found on Surya worship as the text considers Surya as the supreme deity. In it, we find Shri Krishna advising son Samba on how to correctly worship Surya Narayana.</p> <p>As per that, the mantra to be used while pouring the Arghya is a mantra called as the Shakshatkara mantra of sun.</p> <p>Quoting from the book <a href="http://www.kamakoti.org/kamakoti/bhavishya/bookview.php?chapnum=10" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"Essence of Bhavishya Purana"</a>:</p> <br> <blockquote> <p>(Bhagavan Suryanarayana is the readily available vision to the eyes in the whole Universe beyond whom could be no other Deity; the entire ‘Jagat’ has emerged and also terminated only by him.) Time measurement is facilitated only by him since the earliest Satya Yuga; he is the unique cause for the Presence of Grahas ( Planets), Nakshatras (Stars), Yogas, Karanaas, Rashis, Aditya, Vasu, Rudra, Vayu, Agni, Ashvani Kumaras, Indra, Prajapati, Dishas, Bhuh, Bhuvah, and Swah. Besides, he is the permanent ‘Saakshi’ (Evidence) of Mountains, Rivers, Samudra, Naga and all other ‘Charaachara’ or Stationary and Mobile Beings; the World wakes up with him and sleeps due to him; Vedas, Shastras and Itihasas are never tired of praising him as Paramatma, Antaratma and such other truisms; he is present every where, he is eternal and he is all-knowing; and he is the only and distinctive refuge-point to every one always. Having said this, Lord Shri Krishna advised his son Samba about the method of regular and daily worship so demolish sins and ‘Vighnas’ (obstacles). Early morning, before Sun rise, one should complete the ablutions, bathing, wearing clean clothes and offering ‘Achamana’or sipping of three spoonful water by reciting Kesavaya Swaha, Narayana Swaha, and Madhvavaya Swaha etc.<strong>and offer ‘Arghya’ (water with both the palms) to Suryanarayana by mentally reciting the ‘Sakshaatkara Mantra’ viz. OM KHAKHOL -KHAYA SWAHA</strong>; perform Tri-vidha Praanaayaama of Purak, Rechak and Kumbhak or the inhaling, holding and exhaling the four kinds airs viz. Vayavi, Agneyi , Mahendri and Vaaruni for attaining ‘baahyaantara suddhi’or external and internal purity by means of ‘Soshan’, ‘Dahan’, ‘Stambhan’ and ‘Plaavan’ of one’s body. Then, one has to integrate the ‘Sthula’or the physical and ‘Sukshma’ or the miniscule ‘Indriyas’ or limbs. Thereafter one has to perform ‘Anganyasa’ as follows:</p> </blockquote> <br> <p>So, as per this particular Purana, the needed mantra is " OM khakhol khaya swaha". The mantra has to be mentally recited while offering the Arghya.</p> <p>Regarding, what else you have to do in the morning as a Brahmin, apart from offering Surya Arghya, you can ask a separate question on that.</p> <p>EDIT:</p> <p>The book <a href="https://ia802504.us.archive.org/34/items/HindiBookNityaKarmPoojaPrakashCompletebyGitaPress/Hindi%20Book-Nitya-Karm-Pooja-Prakash%28Complete%29by%20Gita%20Press.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"Nitya Karma Puja Prakash"</a> (you need to start reading from page 79 of the book to understand the whole procedure also you need to understand Hindi language) gives another method of offering Surya Arghya that is a bit more elaborate compared to the method of Bhavishya Purana.</p> <p>Here is a screenshot from the book:</p> <br> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/TPkYH.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/TPkYH.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p> <br> <p>As you can see in the image, here you have to first read 3 Viniyoga mantras before offering the Arghya.</p> <p>As proofs of these statements the book cites Smritis and Devi Bhagavatam.</p> <p>The 3 Viniyoga mantras to be chanted (in the given order) are as follows:</p> <p>1.Omkarasya brahma rishir gayatri chandah paramatma devata arghyadane viniyogah \|\|</p> <ol start="2"> <li>Om bhurbhuvah swariti maha vyahritinam parameshthi prajapatir rishih gayatri ushnik anushtup chandamsi agni vayu surya devatah arghyadane viniyogah \|\|</li> </ol> <p>3.Om tat saviturityasya viswamitra rishir gayatri chandah savita devatah surya arghyadane viniyogah \|\|</p> <p>After that, you have to offer the Arghya by chanting the Gayatri mantra "Om Bhur bhuvah swah tatsavitur-varenyam vargo devasya dhimahi, dhiyo yo nah prachodayath \|\| and then finally saying the mantra "Brahmaswarupine surya-narayanaya namaha".</p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/ko1Ik.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/ko1Ik.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>In Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita philosophy this entire, infinite universe is the manifestation of the one supreme God. To awaken is to discover oneself as Lord Shiva Himself, and wherever one looks there is only God. As the advaitin sage Ashtavakra says in his gita (2:8):</p> <p>"Light is my very nature and I am no other than light. When the universe manifests itself, verily then it is I that shine."</p> <p>So to an awakened master who lives in nondual truth, there is no "other". So why teach? Who is there to teach?</p>	42556	42549	4	2	42549	2	Nondualism. There is One only. Why teach?	3	42556	<p>Non-dualism is a state that has to be reached. It is not natural or obvious. The natural state is that of dualism for everyone of us, as we all can see, feel the presence of many all the time.</p> <p>Even the propounders of Advaita must be feeling "many" all the time except when in the state of Samadhi they felt that eventually everything is one.</p> <p>The point is non-dualism is not obvious, it's not a foregone conclusion. It takes some good amount of spiritual practice to achieve that stage and <strong>that practice comes only through a Guru.</strong></p> <p>IMO, your doubt has been addressed and dispelled very well as well in the following writings of Swami Vivekananda:</p> <br> <blockquote> <p><strong>CHAPTER IV THE NEED OF GURU</strong></p> <p>Every soul is destined to be perfect, and every being, in the end, will attain the state of perfection. Whatever we are now is the result of our acts and thoughts in the past; and whatever we shall be in the future will be the result of what we think and do now. But this, the shaping of our own destinies, does not preclude our receiving help from outside; nay, in the vast majority of cases such help is absolutely necessary. When it comes, the higher powers and possibilities of the soul are quickened, spiritual life is awakened, growth is animated, and man becomes holy and perfect in the end.</p> <p><strong>This quickening impulse cannot be derived from books. The soul can only receive impulses from another soul, and from nothing else</strong>. We may study books all our lives, we may become very intellectual, but in the end we find that we have not developed at all spiritually. It is not true that a high order of intellectual development always goes hand in hand with a proportionate development of the spiritual side in Man. In studying books we are sometimes deluded into thinking that thereby we are being spiritually helped; but if we analyse the effect of the study of books on ourselves, we shall find that at the utmost it is only our intellect that derives profit from such studies, and not our inner spirit. This inadequacy of books to quicken spiritual growth is the reason why, although almost every one of us can speak most wonderfully on spiritual matters, when it comes to action and the living of a truly spiritual life, we find ourselves so awfully deficient. <strong>To quicken the spirit, the impulse must come from another soul.</strong></p> <p>The person from whose soul such impulse comes is called the Guru — the teacher; and the person to whose soul the impulse is conveyed is called the Shishya — the student. To convey such an impulse to any soul, in the first place, the soul from which it proceeds must possess the power of transmitting it, as it were, to another; and in the second place, the soul to which it is transmitted must be fit to receive it. The seed must be a living seed, and the field must be ready ploughed; and when both these conditions are fulfilled, a wonderful growth of genuine religion takes place. "The true preacher of religion has to be of wonderful capabilities, and clever shall his hearer be" —</p> <p><a href="https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_3/Bhakti-Yoga/The_Need_of_Guru" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Source --- The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 3/Bhakti-Yoga/The Need of Guru</a></p> </blockquote> <br> <p>Eventually there is only ONE entity. But at present we can not feel it and that's why we need to practice. And, that practice has to be done only under the guidance of a Guru. When, someone is permanently absolved in that state of oneness, there is nothing like Guru-Shishya etc. But, before that we need the knowledge that flows only through the Guru Sishya Parampara.</p> <p>Advaita Vedanta, Kashmiri Shaivism all have their respective Guru Paramparas, through which the knowledge of Advaita has descended. So, there is no contradiction at all. Eventually there is only ONE but before that stage is achieved, we need the teaching, we need the teacher and we need to practice.</p>
<p>I am very much confused by the karma rule, it is said that "If you are doing your duty, you won't get any sin", but how can a terrorist, a smuggler, a rapist doing all negative activities, according to his nature does not do any sin?</p> <p>For example, if a terrorist blast a bomb killing hundreds of people, although he is performing his duty as a best terrorist is not a sin? Hitler Killing Jews thinking his duty is not a sin?</p> <p>I don't understand what lord Krishna wanted to say by this statement, anyone who understands its true meaning is requested to share his wisdom...</p> <p>EDIT 1:</p> <p>I believe strongly in the down mentioned list and therefore no answer is found convincing:</p> <ol> <li><p>Whatever lord had said must be beyond time, i.e. should not depend on time for example law of land which depends on time and changes as the power/control changes cannot be the reason, as it varies from one king to another king, therefore this can't be the answer</p> </li> <li><p>It must be universal, which means should be applicable to everyone, not a specific person, and exclude specific persons... As in Bhagavad Gita, whenever Lord wanted to be specific he clearly mentioned like kings...brahmans...worriers...etc and other things he had not mentioned should be a universal truth.</p> </li> <li><p>I believe Lord had spoken these great words (words of Bhagavad Gita) not only for Arjuna but for all human beings in the universe.</p> </li> <li><p>Many scripture text were lost and many scriptures were molded, Since the almighty knows everything and was also beyond the time, he would also not refer to something which is temporary and will be destroyed with time.</p> </li> </ol> <p>Surprisingly No one was able to mold Bhagavad Gita!!!</p>	42657	42626	1	2	42626	0	Confusion with duty ethics as instructed by Lord Krishna	3	42657	<p>Sri Krishna says in B.G. 3.35</p> <blockquote> <p>श्रेयान्स्वधर्मो विगुण: परधर्मात्स्वनुष्ठितात् \| स्वधर्मे निधनं श्रेय: परधर्मो भयावह: \|\| 35\|\|</p> <p>It is far better to perform one’s natural prescribed duty, though tinged with faults, than to perform another’s prescribed duty, though perfectly. In fact, it is preferable to die in the discharge of one’s duty, than to follow the path of another, which is fraught with danger.</p> </blockquote> <hr /> <p>The key word is swadharma.</p> <p>What is a <strong>swadharma - स्वधर्म</strong> to a soldier, may not be a <strong>swadharma</strong> to a peasant/teacher/king.</p> <ul> <li><p>A soldier, <em><strong>irrespective of the country</strong></em>, had to defend his country. It is swadharma for him.</p> </li> <li><p>A king, <em><strong>irrespective of the country</strong></em>, has to give protection to his people and defend his country from aggression. It is swadharma for him.</p> </li> <li><p>A teacher has to learn and impart knowledge to his disciplies</p> </li> <li><p>A peasant has to do manual work to sustain himself and his family.</p> </li> </ul> <p>We cannot and should not expect one category of people doing the job of the other, though it can be done easily.</p> <p>For example: A soldier, who has strong body and mind and inclination to fight, should defend his country, but should not resort to peasant's work.</p> <p>A good teacher, though well versed in using weapons, should not resort to duties of a soldier. His duty is to teach.</p> <p>Drona is an example of deviating from swadharma.</p> <hr /> <p>However, in respect of a terrorist, It is not <strong>swadharma</strong> for him to kill people, though he may take pretext of working <strong>for the benefit of his ideology or country</strong>. Basically, we are humans AND should resort to killing of humans, without justification. Though one may justify one's terrorist activities, it becomes paradharma.</p> <p>Similar is the case with a person like Hitler.</p> <p>Following paradharma is a SIN.</p> <hr /> <p>Ravana tried to defend his action of abducting Sita, stating that it is swadharma for demons to enjoy women of their choice.</p> <blockquote> <p>स्वधर्मो रक्षसां भीरु सर्वथैव न संशयः \| गमनं वा परस्त्रीणाम् हरणम् सम्प्रमथ्य वा \|\| ५-२०-५</p> <p>"O one with fear! Obtaining women belonging to others or abducting by force is the righteous deed for ogres by all means. There is no doubt in this."</p> </blockquote> <p>However, it is a SIN, and thus he paid price for his misdeed.</p>
<p>Rig Veda II.20.7 says</p> <blockquote> <p>स वृ॑त्र॒हेन्द्र॑: कृ॒ष्णयो॑नीः पुरंद॒रो दासी॑रैरय॒द्वि । अज॑नय॒न्मन॑वे॒ क्षाम॒पश्च॑ स॒त्रा शंसं॒ यज॑मानस्य तूतोत् ॥७॥</p> <p>sa vṛtrahendraḥ <strong>kṛṣṇayonīḥ</strong> purandaro dāsīrairayad vi \| ajanayan manave kṣāmapaśca satrā śaṃsaṃ yajamānasya tūtot \|\|</p> <p>Smasher of Vr̥tra, splitter of fortresses, Indra razed the Dāsa (fortresses) with their <em><strong>dark wombs</strong></em>. He gave birth to the earth and the waters for Manu. In every way he makes the sacrificer’s laud powerful.</p> </blockquote> <p>What is the inner meaning of the phrase <em><strong>dark wombs (kṛṣṇayonīḥ)</strong></em> in this Rig Vedic mantra?</p>	42940	42629	1	2	42629	0	What is the inner meaning of the phrase dark wombs (kṛṣṇayonīḥ) in the Rig Vedic mantra II.20.7?	3	42940	<p>Rig Veda II.20.7</p> <blockquote> <p>स वृ॑त्र॒हेन्द्र॑: कृ॒ष्णयो॑नीः पुरंद॒रो दासी॑रैरय॒द्वि । अज॑नय॒न्मन॑वे॒ क्षाम॒पश्च॑ स॒त्रा शंसं॒ यज॑मानस्य तूतोत् ॥७॥</p> <p>sa vṛtrahendraḥ kṛṣṇayonīḥ purandaro dāsīrairayad vi \| ajanayan manave kṣāmapaśca satrā śaṃsaṃ yajamānasya tūtot \|\|</p> </blockquote> <p>Translation from the Rig Veda by Stephanie W. Jamison and Joel P. Brereton is as follows:</p> <blockquote> <p>Smasher of Vr̥tra, splitter of fortresses, Indra razed the Dāsa (fortresses) with their dark wombs. He gave birth to the earth and the waters for Manu. In every way he makes the sacrificer’s laud powerful.</p> </blockquote> <hr /> <p>Traditional translator Sri Sayana laid a path, which was followed by many Western translators of Rig Veda, restricting the meanings of Rig Vedic mantras to narrow Karma Kanda.</p> <p>Sri Aurobindo says on Sri Sayana as follows:</p> <blockquote> <p>...it is the central defect of Sayana’s system that he is obsessed always by the ritualistic formula and seeks continually to force the sense of the Veda into that narrow mould.</p> </blockquote> <hr /> <p>Thee word Dāsa in the above verse can be understood from the article of Sri Aurobindo .</p> <p>Sri Aurobindo explains <a href="https://www.sri-aurobindo.in/workings/sa/37_15/0021_e.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>Dasyus or Dāsas</strong></a> as follows:</p> <blockquote> <p>We have seen, not once but repeatedly, that it is impossible to read into the story of the Angirases, Indra and Sarama, the cave of the Panis and the conquest of the Dawn, the Sun and the Cows an account of a political and military struggle between Aryan invaders and Dravidian cave-dwellers.</p> <p>It is a struggle between the seekers of Light and the powers of Darkness; the cows are the illuminations of the Sun and the Dawn, they cannot be physical cows; the wide fear-free field of the Cows won by Indra for the Aryans is the wide world of Swar, the world of the solar Illumination, the threefold luminous regions of Heaven.</p> <p>Therefore equally the Panis must be taken as <strong>powers of the cave of Darkness</strong>. It is quite true that <em><strong>the Panis are Dasyus or Dāsas</strong></em>; they are spoken of constantly by that name, they are described as the Dāsa Varna as opposed to the Arya Varna, and varṇa, colour, is the word used for caste or class in the Brahmanas and later writings, although it does not therefore follow that it has that sense in the Rig Veda.</p> <p>The Dasyus are the haters of the sacred word; they are those who give not to the gods the gift or the holy wine, who keep their wealth of cows and horses and other treasure for themselves and do not give them to the seers; they are those who do not the sacrifice. We may, if we like, suppose that there was a struggle between two different cults in India and that the Rishis took their images from the physical struggle between the human representatives of these cults and applied them to the spiritual conflict, just as they employed the other details of their physical life to symbolise the spiritual sacrifice, the spiritual wealth, the spiritual battle and journey.</p> <p>But it is perfectly certain that in the Rig Veda at least it is the spiritual conflict and victory, not the physical battle and plunder of which they are speaking.</p> </blockquote> <hr /> <p>Coming to the question part - the inner meaning of the word <strong>kṛṣṇayonīḥ</strong>, we have another meaning than the known meaning of <strong>dark wombs</strong> of Stephanie W. Jamison and Joel P. Brereton.</p> <p>It can also mean <strong>Dark Origin/born out of darkness</strong>.</p> <hr /> <p>The power of the Almighty God is called Indra (epithet).</p> <p>Indra destroys the power of ONE's intentions/weaknesses born out of ignorance (darkness), which hinders the deliverance of <strong>Illumination</strong> (cow/waters) or <strong>SELF REALISATION</strong>, which is hidden within ONESELF (cave) to humans.</p>
<p>How did different people with different philosophies and ideologies attain the same enlightenment or did they not? Buddha attained enlightenment and so did Adi Shankaracharya, but their philosophies are different (not to mention ramanujacharya, nagarjuna and many others). Or is it the case that we can never really know who attains enlightenment? Well I know that there is similarity between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta but at the core they are very different. How did they attain the same enlightenment knowing the real truth in two different ways? At least one of them is wrong.</p> <p>Well some say the truth can be interpreted in different ways but if advaita says self exists and buddhism denies it there is a big problem you can't make them compatible with one another.</p> <p>I have already asked this question here <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/41369/nature-of-enlightenment/41383?noredirect=1#comment67347_41383">https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/41369/nature-of-enlightenment/41383?noredirect=1#comment67347_41383</a> and got pretty decent answers, i just wanted to know advaitins view.</p>	42692	42691	4	2	42691	1	Nature of enlightenment	3	42692	<p>No definitive answer can be given to this question. However, a speculative answer may be given.</p> <p>Advaita Vedanta enlightenment is attained when the mind becomes still.</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>When the lake of the mind becomes clear and still</strong>, man knows himself as he really is, always was, and always will be. <strong>He knows that he is the Atman.</strong> His 'personality', his mistaken belief in himself as a separate, unique individual, disappears. "Patanjali" is only an outer covering, like a coat or a mask, which he can assume or lay aside as he chooses. <strong>Such a man is known as a free, illumined soul.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><strong>How to know God <em>The Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali I.3</em> Commentary by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>:"Now I'd like to say more about the fundamental nature of the mind. There is no reason to believe that <strong>the innate mind, the very essential luminous nature of awareness</strong>, has neural correlates, because it is not physical, not contingent upon the brain. So while agree with neuroscience that gross mental events correlate with brain activity, I also feel that on a more subtle level of consciousness, brain and mind are two separate entities."</p> </blockquote> <p>Dalai Lama in 'On Luminosity of mind' quoted in '<strong>The Really hard problem</strong> meaning in a material world' by Owen Flanagan</p> <p>It seems comparing the two quotes that <strong>Advaita Vedanta enlightenment is achieved when the mind disappears</strong> while <strong>Buddhist enlightenment is attained when the mind itself becomes luminous.</strong></p>
<p>Our life is not constant some times go up and sometimes down</p> <p>In our day to day life sometimes lust thought/anger thought attack you but not badly , but at some special day lustful thought/anger thought attack u very badly at that moment our mind doesn't work properly , so we lose ourself when we have done bad deed/work through lust/anger</p> <p>my question is that How to control /manage the mind when lustful thought/anger thought attack you badly and badly ?</p>	46339	42715	6	2	42715	2	How to control /manage the mind when angry and lustful thoughts attack you very badly?	3	46339	<p>Anger is the negative emotion that hits the mind and body badly. To overcome the strong emotions, you have to do work on your mind thoughts lets reduce the frequency of thoughts through pranayama as adhi is the invitation of certain diseases. <strong><a href="https://yogicank.com/yoga-helps-improve-mental-health-in-wfh-days/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Yoga that helps to reduce mind fluctuations and relax. Here we work on our Manomaya Kosha</a></strong>:- Sit comfortably and practice conscious breathing, inhale, and exhale five to ten times. In conscious breathing, a person concentrates on a breathing pattern, inhales and bulges out the stomach like a balloon, and squeezes the stomach during exhale.</p> <p>Practice Pranayama like anulom vilom, kapalabhati, and bhramari.</p> <p>Practice meditation at least for 5 minutes and chanting OM. When you are peaceful from the inside, you will be treated the same way others.</p> <p>Practice forward bending asanas like balasana, paschimottanasana; the spiritual significance of these asanas is bow down, which teaches us to become humble and egoless.</p> <p>Thanks</p>
<p>The verses 67-68 from Gita chapter 2 are given below:</p> <p><strong>Indriyaanaam hi charataam yanmanuvidheeyate</strong></p> <p><strong>Tadasya harati prajnyaam vaayurnaavamivaambhasi</strong></p> <p>what is the deep meaning of this Gita quote ?</p>	42903	42902	2	2	42902	1	what is the deep meaning of this Gita quote?	3	42903	<p>Sloka 67 of Chapter 2 of BG relates to pure SPIRITUAL aspects.</p> <p>If we start with Sloka 62 of Chapter 2 of BG, we can understand that they are related to PURE SPIRITUAL aspects, meant for persons proposing to be/already engaged in SPIRITUAL pursuits.</p> <blockquote> <p>ध्यायतो विषयान्पुंसः सङ्गस्तेषूपजायते।</p> <p>सङ्गात् संजायते कामः कामात्क्रोधोऽभिजायते।।2.62।।</p> <p>In the case of a person who dwells on objects, there arises attachment for them. From attachment grows hankering, from hankering springs anger.</p> <p>क्रोधाद्भवति संमोहः संमोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रमः।</p> <p>स्मृतिभ्रंशाद् बुद्धिनाशो बुद्धिनाशात्प्रणश्यति।।2.63।।</p> <p>From anger follows delusion; from delusion, failure of memory; from failure of memory, the loss of understanding; from the loss of understanding, he perishes.</p> <p>नास्ति बुद्धिरयुक्तस्य न चायुक्तस्य भावना।</p> <p>न चाभावयतः शान्तिरशान्तस्य कुतः सुखम्।।2.66।।</p> <p>The man who cannot fix his mind in meditation cannot have knowledge of the Self. The unsteady man cannot practise meditation. He cannot have even intense devotion to Self knowledge nor can he have burning longing for liberation or Moksha.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>He who does not practise meditation cannot possess peace of mind. How can the man who has no peace of mind enjoy happiness?</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Desire or Trishna (thirsting for sense objects) is the enemy of peace. There cannot be an iota or tinge of happiness for a man who is thirsting for sensual objects. The mind will be ever restless? and will be hankering for the objects. Only when this thirsting dies? does man enjoy peace. Only then can he meditate and rest in the Self.</p> </blockquote> <p>Then comes the sloka 67.</p> <blockquote> <p>इन्द्रियाणां हि चरतां यन्मनोऽनुविधीयते।</p> <p>तदस्य हरति प्रज्ञां वायुर्नावमिवाम्भसि।।2.67।।</p> <p>That mind, which is allowed by a person to be submissive to, i.e., allowed to go after the senses which go on operating, i.e., experiencing sense-objects, such a mind loses its inclination towards the pure self. The meaning is that it gets inclined towards sense-objects. Just as a contrary wind forcibly carries away a ship moving on the waters, in the name manner wisdom also is carried away from such a mind. [The idea is that the pursuit of sense pleasures dulls one's spiritual inclination, and the mind ultimately succumbs to them unresisting.]</p> </blockquote> <hr /> <p>These are related to keeping the senses fixed on Meditating on God, without allowing the senses wandering here and there.</p>
<p>Gita ch.14 verse 27</p> <blockquote> <p>brahmano hi pratisthaham amrtasyavyayasya ca sasvatasya ca dharmasya sukhasyaikantikasya ca</p> </blockquote> <p>What does this verse mean?</p>	42976	42953	1	2	42953	1	What is the meaning of Gita ch.14 verse 27?	3	42976	<p>I will answer this question, from the point of view of advaita. I will quote a portion of the commentary by Madhusudhana Saraswati (MS) in his Gudartha dipika. The gist is based on the translation of Swami Gambhirananda.</p> <p>MS commentary (partial)</p> <blockquote> <p>अत्र हेतुमाह -- ब्रह्मणस्तत्पदवाच्यस्य सोपाधिकस्य जगदुत्पत्तिस्थितिलयहेतोः प्रतिष्ठा पारमार्थिकं निर्विकल्पकं सच्चिदानन्दात्मकं निरुपाधिकं तत्पदलक्ष्यमहं निर्विकल्पको वासुदेवः प्रतितिष्ठत्यत्रेति प्रतिष्ठा कल्पितरूपरहितमकल्पितं रूपमतो यो मामनुपाधिकं ब्रह्म सेवते स ब्रह्मभूयाय कल्पत इति युक्तमेव।</p> </blockquote> <p>Gist of the above: brahman, here refers to sopAdhika brahman or brahman with limiting adjuncts or the conditioned brahman. Roughly speaking, this is same as saguNa brahman or brahman with attributes/qualities or the lower brahman. This sopAdhika brahman is the creator, preserver and destroyer of the world.</p> <p>Krishna (or vAsudeva) is saying that he is the basis of the sopAdhika brahman. Here, Krishna or vAsudeva is the nirupAdhika brahman, who is unconditioned, and hence is the supreme brahman, which is the essential nature of the conditioned brahman. Krishna/vAsudeva is the supreme reality, which is sat-chit-Ananda or existence, knowledge and bliss. The true nature of the sopAdhika brahman is the nirupAdhika brahman. That is the idea.</p> <p>Continuation of MS commentary</p> <blockquote> <p>कीदृशस्य ब्रह्मणः प्रतिष्ठाहमित्याकाङ्क्षायां विशेषणानि। अमृतस्य विनाशरहितस्य अव्ययस्य विपरिणामरहितस्य च शाश्वतस्यापक्षयरहितस्य च धर्मस्य ज्ञाननिष्ठालक्षणधर्मप्राप्यस्य सुखस्य परमानन्दरूपस्य। सुखस्य विषयेन्द्रियसंयोगजत्वं वारयति -- ऐकान्तिकस्याव्यभिचारिणः सर्वस्मिन्देशे काले च विद्यमानस्य। ऐकान्तिकसुखरूपस्येत्यर्थः।</p> </blockquote> <p>Gist: Now the qualities of the sopAdhika brahman are listed. It is indestructible, immutable, free from transformations, eternal, devoid of decay, it is the Dharma which is attainable through steadfastness in knowledge, it is happiness which is by nature the supreme bliss, the absolute happiness (not the happiness that arises from contact of objects and senses). It is the happiness that exists in all places and times.</p> <p>Final gist: Krishna is the unconditioned highest brahman, and He is the real nature of the conditioned lower brahman. Krishna is thus the basis of the lower brahman. The lower brahman rests on Krishna. The qualities of lower brahman are, being immutable, indestructible, eternal etc.</p>
<p>I want to know the names of the kings and their kingdoms who participated in Mahabharata war either from Kaurava side or Pandava side.</p>	43526	43234	7	2	43234	10	Names of the kings and their kingdoms who participated in Mahabharata war	3	43526	<p>In the Mahabharata war, the number of tribes are so numerous that it is difficult to count each and every one of them. Further there are many kingdoms that took part on both sides of the war, adding to the complexity. In the Mahabharata Udyoga Parva (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>), it is stated that:</p> <blockquote> <p>there was no space in the city of Hastinapura even for the principal leaders of Duryodhana's army. And for this reason the land of the five rivers, and the whole of the region called Kurujangala, and the forest of Rohitaka which was uniformly wild, and Ahichatra and Kalakuta, and the banks of the Ganga, and Varana, and Vatadhana, and the hill tracts on the border of the Yamuna--the whole of this extensive tract--full of abundant corn and wealth, was entirely overspread with the army of the Kauravas.</p> </blockquote> <p>Most of the tribes do not mention the kings, and thus these have been included as a continuous list of only kingdoms on either side. Accordingly a list encompassing most (not all) of the kingdoms and tribes can be as under in the format depicitng the kingdom, followed by the king or chief and the reference for either:</p> <h3>Pāṇḍava's side (comprising 7 akṣauhiṇīs)</h3> <p><strong>Main Kingdoms and their kings</strong></p> <ol> <li><p>Cedi - Dhṛṣṭaketu, son of Śiśupāla (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05172.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.172</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07023.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.23</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08020.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.20</a>)</p> </li> <li><p>Kāśī - Kāśīrāja (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m04/m04072.htm" rel="noreferrer">4.72</a>)</p> </li> <li><p>Kekaya - there were 5 brothers namely Kāśika, Sukumāra, Nīla, Suryadatta and Śaṅkha, who had been deposed of their throne. The other Kekayas were on the Kaurava side (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05172.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.172</a>)</p> </li> <li><p>Kuntīrāṣṭra - Kuntībhoja and his son Purujit (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05173.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.173</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06075.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.75</a>)</p> </li> <li><p>Magadha - Sahadeva (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05158.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.158</a>)</p> </li> <li><p>Matsya - Virāṭa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>)</p> </li> <li><p>Pañcāla - Drupada (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m04/m04072.htm" rel="noreferrer">4.72</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>)</p> </li> <li><p>Pāṅḍya - Sarangadhvaja (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07023.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.23</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08020.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.20</a>)</p> </li> <li><p>Śibi - Śaibya (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m04/m04072.htm" rel="noreferrer">4.72</a>)</p> </li> <li><p>Lord Kṛṣṇa, the head of all Yadava kingdoms/tribes (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12a080.htm" rel="noreferrer">12.80</a>), himself stayed on the Pāṇḍava's side without fighting in the war and merely acted as Arjuna’s charioteer. He had however lent his army to the Kauravas (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05007.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.07</a>)<br><br>Sātyaki, another of the Vṛṣṇi Yadava race however did not go to the Kaurava’s side with the rest of the Nārāyaṇa army, but instead acted as a commander of 1 akṣauhiṇī of the Pāṇḍava's troops from various kingdoms (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>)</p> </li> </ol> <p><strong>Other kingdoms/tribes/sub-tribes:</strong><br> Anūpaka (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) Aśmaka (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07082.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.85</a>) Coḷa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08012.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.12</a>) Daśārṇa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07024.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.24</a>) Dāśeraka (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) Draviḍa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08012.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.12</a>) Hūṇa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) Karūṣa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05022.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.022</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06056.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.56</a>) Keraḷa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08012.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.12</a>) Kulinda (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08085.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.85</a>) Kuṇḍīviṣa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) Laḍaka (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) Maṇḍaka (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) Niṣāda (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) Paṭaccara (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) Pauravaka (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) Piśāca (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) Prayāga (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) Śavara (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) Taṅgaṇa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) Uddra (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) Vatsa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06050.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.50</a>) The Somakas, Srinjayas, Prabhadrakas etc. were part of the Pancala tribe and hence not included separately here.</p> <h3>Kaurava's side (comprising 11 akṣauhiṇīs)</h3> <p><strong>Main Kingdoms and their kings</strong></p> <ol> <li>Aṅga - Karṇa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06017.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.17</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08022.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.22</a>)</li> <li>Avanti - Vinda and Anuvinda (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05167.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.167</a>)</li> <li>Bahlīka - Somadatta and his son Bhūriśravas (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05166.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.166</a>)</li> <li>Gāndhāra - Śakuni (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm#fn_358" rel="noreferrer">5.51</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05167.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.167</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07007.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.7</a>)</li> <li>Kaliṅga - Śrutāydha (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06016.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.16</a>)</li> <li>Kāmboja - Sudakṣiṅa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>)</li> <li>Kosala - Bṛhadbala (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05167.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.167</a>)</li> <li>Kuru - under the Kauravas</li> <li>Madra - Śalya (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05008.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.8</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05166.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.166</a>)</li> <li>Magadha - Jayatsena, son of Jarasandha (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06016.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.16</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06047.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.47</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08005.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.5</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08073.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.73</a>)</li> <li>Māhiṣmatī - Nīla (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>)</li> <li>Prāgjyotiṣa - Bhagadatta (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05168.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.168</a>)</li> <li>Sindhu and Sauvīra - Jayadratha (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>)</li> <li>Trigarta - five brothers headed by Satyaratha (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05167.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.167</a>)</li> <li>The Nārāyaṇa army of Kṛṣṇa numbering 1 akṣauhiṇī was given to the Kaurava side. They comprised various Yadava tribes like Bhoja, Andhaka, Kukkura, who fought under the command of - Kṛtavarman of the Bhoja tribe (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05007.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.07</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05166.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.166</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08011.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.11</a>) (As mentioned above, their King, Lord Kṛṣṇa was on the opposite side, as Arjuna’s charioteer)</li> </ol> <p><strong>Other kingdoms/tribes/sub-tribes:</strong><br> Abhīra (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07020.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.20</a>) Abhīṣaha (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06018.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.18</a>) Ambaṣṭha - Śrutāyus (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06018.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.18</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08005.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.5</a>) Āndhra (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05161.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.161</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08073.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.73</a>) Aswalaka (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.51</a>) Barbara (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07115.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.118</a>) Cīna - Bhagadatta (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>) Darada (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.51</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08073.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.73</a>) Dārvābhisāra (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08073.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.73</a>) Daśārṇa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.51</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08022.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.22</a>) Dāśerakas (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06056.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.56</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07020.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.20</a>) Draviḍa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05161.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.161</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08005.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.5</a>) Kamaṭha (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08073.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.73</a>) Karṇaprāvaraṇa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.51</a>) Karūṣa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06056.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.56</a>) Kekaya (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06075.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.75</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08005.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.5</a>) Khaśa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05161.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.161</a>) Kirāta - Bhagadatta (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08073.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.73</a>) Kitava (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06018.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.18</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07007.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.7</a>) Kṣudraka (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.51</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08005.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.5</a>) Kulūta (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08012.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.12</a>) Kuṇḍīviṣa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06056.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.56</a>) Kuntala (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.51</a>) Lalita (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07017.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.17</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08005.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.5</a>) Malada (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07007.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.7</a>) Mālava (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.51</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07007.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.7</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08005.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.5</a>) Maṇibhadraka (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.51</a>) Matsya (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05161.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.161</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06018.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.18</a>) Mekalas (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06088.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.88</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08022.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.22</a>) Niṣadha - Bṛhatkṣatra (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07020.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.20</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07030.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.30</a>) Pahlava (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06020.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.20</a>) Pārada (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06088.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.88</a>) Pulinda (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05161.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.161</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08073.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.73</a>) Puṇḍra (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07020.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.20</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08022.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.22</a>) Ramaṭha (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08073.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.73</a>) Recaka (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.51</a>) Śaka - Sudakṣiṅa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05161.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.161</a>) Śālva (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05161.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.161</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06018.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.18</a>) Samsthana (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.51</a>) Savitriputra (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08005.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.5</a>) Śibi (aka Uśīnara) (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06018.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.18</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08005.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.5</a>) Siṃhala (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07020.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.20</a>) Śūdra (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07007.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.7</a>) Śūrasena (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06018.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.18</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06056.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.56</a>) Tāmraliptaka (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08022.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.22</a>) Taṅgaṇa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08020.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.20</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08073.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.73</a>) Tuṇḍikera (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08005.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.5</a>) Tuṣāra (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06075.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.75</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08073.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.73</a>) Utkala (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08022.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.22</a>) Vamana (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.51</a>) Vaṅga (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08022.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.22</a>) Vasati (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06018.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.18</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07020.htm" rel="noreferrer">7.20</a>) Vāṭadhāna (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06056.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.56</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08073.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.73</a>) Veṇika (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.51</a>) Vikarna (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.51</a>) Vikuñja (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06056.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.56</a>) Vṛka (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06051.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.51</a>) Yaudheya (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08005.htm" rel="noreferrer">8.5</a>) Yavana - Sudakṣiṅa (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05019.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.19</a>, <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06020.htm" rel="noreferrer">6.20</a>)</p> <p><strong>Neutral:</strong> <br>1. Rukmī of Vidarbha remained neutral as he was rejected by both sides (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05159.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.159</a>)<br> 2. Lord Balarāma too personally stayed out of the war (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05007.htm" rel="noreferrer">5.07</a>)</p>
<p>In Mahabharata, Pandavas used to visit Sudra's homes. It can be clarified from the following passage</p> <blockquote> <p>Vaisampayana said, 'Then all the citizens (of Varanavata) on hearing that the son of Pandu had come, were filled with joy at the tidings, speedily came out of Varanavata, in vehicles of various kinds numbering by thousands, taking with them every auspicious article as directed by the Sastras, for receiving those foremost of men. And the people of Varanavata, approaching the sons of Kunti blessed them by uttering the Jaya and stood surrounding them. That tiger among men, viz., the virtuous Yudhishthira thus surrounded by them looked resplendent like him having the thunderbolt in his hands (viz., Indra) in the midst of the celestials. And those sinless ones, welcomed by the citizens and welcoming the citizens in return, then entered the populous town of Varanavata decked with every ornament. Entering the town those heroes first went, O monarch, to the abodes of Brahmanas engaged in their proper duties. Those foremost of men then went to the abodes of the officials of the town, and then of the Sutas and the Vaisyas and <strong>then to those of even the Sudras</strong>, O bull of Bharata's race, thus adored by the citizens, the Pandavas at last went with Purochana going before them, to the palace that had been built for them, Purochana then began to place before them food and drink and beds and carpets, all of the first and most agreeable order. The Pandavas attired in costly robes, continued to live there, adored by Purochana and the people having their homes in Varanavata.</p> <p><a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01149.htm" rel="noreferrer">[Section 148, Jatugriha Parva, Adi Parva, The Mahabharata]</a></p> </blockquote> <p>Are there any such instances where Krishna visited Sudra's home or touching a Sudra?</p>	43640	43638	5	2	43638	9	Krishna visiting Sudra's home or touching a Sudra	3	43640	<p>In Mahabharat era - Mahatma Vidura [महात्मा विदुर] - who was a dasi-putra (son of servant of Hastinapur's king) - was considered as Shudra (means worker class) Varna. And Sri Krishna did visit his home - when he visited as a "messenger of Pandavas" - with the purpose to avoid the war.</p>
<p>What is the evidence to show Gita and Upanishads are Pre Buddhist?The term Brahma-nirvana appears in verses 2.72 and 5.24-26 of the Bhagavad Gita. According to Zaehner, Johnson and other scholars, nirvana in the Gita is a Buddhist term adopted by the Hindus. Zaehner states it was used in Hindu texts for the first time in the Bhagavad Gita, and that the idea therein in verse 2.71-72 to "suppress one's desires and ego" is also Buddhist. According to Johnson the term nirvana is borrowed from the Buddhists to confuse the Buddhists, by linking the Buddhist nirvana state to the pre-Buddhist Vedic tradition of metaphysical absolute called Brahman.</p>	43870	43759	10	2	43759	8	How to prove that Nirvana term in Gita isn't borrowed from Buddhism?	3	43870	<p>Totally <strong>false claim</strong>. Adding Nirvana makes no sense later because the the concept was already present in in Mahabharata <strong>before that</strong>.</p> <p>'<strong>Nirvana</strong>' is one of the names of Vishnu in <strong>Vishnu sahasranama</strong> of Mahabhrata, Here is excerpt from BORI CE translation- <a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/QXFAT.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/QXFAT.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p> <p>Note that I have highlighted the term '<strong>Nirvana</strong>'. I referred to other Sanskrit cource the name mentioned is <strong>निर्वाण</strong>म् which means '<strong>All-Bliss</strong>'. Its highly unlikely that people took a Buddhist name and made it one of the <strong>names of lord Vishnu.</strong></p> <p>Acharya's who <strong>opposed</strong> the Buddhist philosophy, in their commentaries of Vishnu-Sahasranama never objected on this particular name.</p> <p>Before this also in <strong>Anusashan Parva</strong> the term 'Nirvana' occurs twice the reference are as follows-</p> <blockquote> <p>The learned ones have said that <strong>nirvana is supreme</strong>.Therefore, one should not act in accordance with what is pleasant and what is unpleasant. However, a person who follows kama does not attach importance to this. I act wherever I have been appointed. All the beings have been appointed by destiny.</p> </blockquote> <p>Here is another reference from Mahabharata itself-</p> <blockquote> <p>It is my view that <strong>nirvana is extremely difficult to attain</strong>. There are many obstacles along the path. Therefore, those who follow this dharma, are devoted to truth, generosity and austerities, have the quality of not causing injury, are devoid of desire and anger, are engaged in the task of protecting the subjects, are based on supreme self-control and fight for the sake of cattle and brahmanas, obtain the supreme</p> </blockquote> <p>Also the term Mentioned in <strong>Bhagwat gita</strong> is same as the name in <strong>Vishnu Sashranama</strong>-</p> <p>लभन्ते ब्रह्म<strong>निर्वाण</strong>मृषय: क्षीणकल्मषा:\| छिन्नद्वैधा यतात्मान: सर्वभूतहिते रता: \|\| 5.25\|\|</p> <p>कामक्रोधवियुक्तानां यतीनां यतचेतसाम् \| अभितो ब्रह्म<strong>निर्वाणं</strong> वर्तते विदितात्मनाम् \|\| 5.26\|\|</p>
<p>Why do Vedas, which are authorless and eternal, contains something like caste system which divides people on the basis of birth and even if they divide people on the basis of guna or karma why there is restriction on them for reading the vedas, performing sacred rituals etc. Isn't something which is eternal and authorless and whose goal was to tell the humans to realize the truth and become free(attain moksha) should be open to all humans?</p>	43798	43772	2	2	43772	4	Caste System in Vedas	4	43798	<blockquote> <p>Why do Vedas, which are authorless and eternal</p> </blockquote> <p>They are not authorless and eternal. The Vedas are authored by the rishis based on their spiritual experiences. This is said by the rishis themselves in the Vedas. For example:</p> <blockquote> <p>RV 1.61.4: asmā idu stomaṃ saṃ hinomi rathaṃ na taṣṭeva — “For him, <strong>I design this hymn</strong>, just as a carpenter designs a chariot”</p> <p>RV 1.94.1: imaṃ stomamarhate jātavedase rathamiva saṃ mahemā manīṣayā — “<strong>This stotra we make</strong> for the most sacred Jātaveda with deep meditation, just like building a chariot”</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Rig Veda Book 4 Hymn 26 and in Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.4.10): Seeing this, the sage Vamadeva repeated at every moment: "I was Manu. I was the sun-god."</p> </blockquote> <p>Then,</p> <blockquote> <p>contains something like caste system which divides people on the basis of birth and even if they divide people on the basis of guna or karma why there is restriction on them for reading the vedas, performing sacred rituals etc.</p> </blockquote> <p>Because based on past merits and sins, they have the right to perform some duties whereas some do not have that right:</p> <blockquote> <p>Chandogya Upanishad V.10.7 - Those whose conduct here has been good will quickly attain a good birth (literally womb), the birth of a brahmin, the birth of a Ksatriya or the birth of a Vaisya. But those whose conduct here has been evil, will quickly attain an evil birth, the birth of a dog, the birth of a hog or the birth of a chandala.</p> </blockquote> <p>A person who kills a holy man (Brahmin), or steals his property and gold, will be born as a Chandala in a future life. His punishment will be that he is obligated to work in the graveyard, which is the duty of chandalas. Contrarily, someone who does good deeds will be born as a Brahmana, who is required to teach the Vedas.</p> <p>So based on past merit and sins, one is rewarded pure and impure work. This is just like how in the modern jail system, criminals have to do community service work by picking up trash.</p> <blockquote> <p>whose goal was to tell the humans to realize the truth and become free(attain moksha) should be open to all humans?</p> </blockquote> <p>As a matter of fact, moksha is open to all castes, but the path to moksha is different.</p> <blockquote> <p>Bhagavad Gita 9.32 - O son of Pṛthā, those who surrender to me, even though they are of sinful birth, women, vaishyas, or shudras, they will still attain the supreme goal (moksha).</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Bhagavad Gita 18.66 - After abandoning all the other means of liberation, surrender only to me. I will release you from all sins.</p> </blockquote> <p>So moksha is open to all.</p>
<p>Bramahasutras mention that it is forbidden for Shudras to listen to Vedic Mantras. Any specific reason for this?</p>	43851	43842	1	2	43842	3	Why do Bramha sutras say that Shudras cannot listen to Vedas?	3	43851	<p>The specific sutras you reference have always been controversial. All the arguments, on all sides, narrow down to one question - who is sudra, who is not; is varna from birth, or from conduct. The specific verses are <em>Brahma Sutras</em> 1.3.34-38. Before quoting these verses and some commentary in both Shankaracharya and Ramanuja, it is best to first reference <em>Chandogya Upanishad</em> as both reference it. The <em>Chandogya Upanishad</em> IV.4.3-5. These verses read (<a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/chandogya-upanishad-english/d/doc239072.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/chandogya-upanishad-english/d/doc239072.html</a>):</p> <blockquote> <p>Verse 4.4.3</p> <p>स ह हारिद्रुमतं गौतममेत्योवाच ब्रह्मचर्यं भगवति वत्स्याम्युपेयां भगवन्तमिति ॥ ४.४.३ ॥</p> <p>sa ha hāridrumataṃ gautamametyovāca brahmacaryaṃ bhagavati vatsyāmyupeyāṃ bhagavantamiti \|\| 4.4.3 \|\|</p> <ol start="3"> <li>Satyakāma went to Gautama, the son of Haridrumata, and said: ‘Revered sir, I wish to live with you as a celibate. I have come, revered sir, to be your disciple’.</li> </ol> <p>Word-for-word explanation:</p> <p>Saḥ ha hāridmmatam gautamam etya, he went to Gautama, the son of Haridrumata; uvāca, [and] said; brahmacaryam bhagavati vatsyāmi, revered sir, I wish to live [with you] as a celibate student; upeyām bhagavantam iti, I have come to you, revered sir, [as a disciple].</p> <p>Verse 4.4.4</p> <p>तं होवाच किंगोत्रो नु सोम्यासीति स होवाच नाहमेतद्वेद भो यद्गोत्रोऽहमस्म्यपृच्छं मातरं सा मा प्रत्यब्रवीद्बह्वहं चरन्ती परिचरिणी यौवने त्वामलभे साहमेतन्न वेद यद्गोत्रस्त्वमसि जबाला तु नामाहमस्मि सत्यकामो नाम त्वमसीति सोऽहं सत्यकामो जाबालोऽस्मि भो इति ॥ ४.४.४ ॥</p> <p>taṃ hovāca kiṃgotro nu somyāsīti sa hovāca nāhametadveda bho yadgotro'hamasmyapṛcchaṃ mātaraṃ sā mā pratyabravīdbahvahaṃ carantī paricariṇī yauvane tvāmalabhe sāhametanna veda yadgotrastvamasi jabālā tu nāmāhamasmi satyakāmo nāma tvamasīti so'haṃ satyakāmo jābālo'smi bho iti \|\| 4.4.4 \|\|</p> <ol start="4"> <li>Gautama asked him, ‘O Somya, what is your lineage?’ Satyakāma said: ‘Sir, I do not know what my lineage is. When I asked my mother, she said to me: “I was very busy serving many people when I was young, and I had you. As this was the situation, I know nothing about your lineage. My name is Jabālā, and your name is Satyakāma.” So, sir, I am Satyakāma Jābāla’.</li> </ol> <p>Word-for-word explanation:</p> <p>Tam ha uvāca, he [Gautama] said to him; kim gotraḥ nu somya asi iti, O Somya, what is your lineage; saḥ ha uvāca, he [Satyakāma] said; na aham etat veda bhoḥ, I do not know this, sir; yat gotraḥ aham asmi, of what lineage I am; apṛccham mātaram, I asked my mother; sā mā pratyabravīt, she said to me; bahu aham carantī paricāriṇī, I was busy serving many people; yauvane tvām alabhe, I had you when I was young; sā etat, for this reason; aham yat gotraḥ tvam asi na veda, I know nothing about what your lineage is; jabālā tu nāma aham asmi, but my name is Jabālā; satyakāmaḥ nāma tvam asi, your name is Satyakāma; saḥ aham satyakāmaḥ jābālaḥ asmi bhoḥ iti, so I am Satyakāma Jābāla, sir.</p> <p>Commentary:</p> <p>Jabālā told Satyakāma the truth and, should anyone ask him, she told him to tell the truth also—irrespective</p> <p>Verse 4.4.5</p> <p>तं होवाच नैतदब्राह्मणो विवक्तुमर्हति समिधं सोम्याहरोप त्वा नेष्ये न सत्यादगा इति तमुपनीय कृशानामबलानां चतुःशता गा निराकृत्योवाचेमाः सोम्यानुसंव्रजेति ता अभिप्रस्थापयन्नुवाच नासहस्रेणावर्तेयेति स ह वर्षगणं प्रोवास ता यदा सहस्रं सम्पेदुः ॥ ४.४.५ ॥ ॥ इति चतुर्थः खण्डः ॥</p> <p>taṃ hovāca naitadabrāhmaṇo vivaktumarhati samidhaṃ somyāharopa tvā neṣye na satyādagā iti tamupanīya kṛśānāmabalānāṃ catuḥśatā gā nirākṛtyovācemāḥ somyānusaṃvrajeti tā abhiprasthāpayannuvāca nāsahasreṇāvarteyeti sa ha varṣagaṇaṃ provāsa tā yadā sahasraṃ sampeduḥ \|\| 4.4.5 \|\| \|\| iti caturthaḥ khaṇḍaḥ \|\|</p> <ol start="5"> <li>Gautama said to him: ‘No non-brāhmin could speak like this. [Therefore, you must be a brāhmin.] O Somya, go and get me some fuel [for the sacrificial fire]. I will initiate you [as a brāhmin by presenting you with the sacred thread], as you have not deviated from truth.’ After the initiation, he selected four hundred feeble and famished cows. Addressing Satyakāma, Gautama said, ‘O Somya, take these cows away [and look after them].’ As Satyakāma was taking them away, he said, ‘I will not come back until there are a thousand of them.’ He lived away for many years until they had become a thousand.</li> </ol> <p>Word-for-word explanation:</p> <p>Tam ha uvāca, he [Gautama] said to him; na etat abrāhmaṇaḥ vivaktum arhati, no non-brāhmin could speak like this; samidham āhara, get some fuel; somya, O Somya; tvā upaneṣye, I shall initiate you; na satyāt agāḥ iti, you have not deviated from truth; tam upanīya, having initiated him; kṛśānām abalānām catuḥśatāḥ gāḥ, four hundred thin and famished cows; nirākṛtya uvāca, having chosen, he said; somya, O Somya; anusaṃvraja iti, take these away; tāḥ abhiprasthāpayan, as he was leaving with them; uvāca, he [Satyakāma] said; na āvarteya asahasreṇa, I will not come back until they are a thousand in number; saḥ ha varṣagaṇam provāsa, he lived away for a long time; tāḥ yadā sahasram sampeduḥ, until they were a thousand. Iti caturthaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fourth section.</p> <p>Commentary:</p> <p>The point is, no matter what Satyakāma’s birth was, he had the qualities of a brāhmin—love of truth and learning. Though he had to suffer much hardship living in the forest looking after the cows, he was more concerned with keeping his word than with seeking physical comforts.</p> </blockquote> <p>Now, Shankara's <em>Brahma Sutras</em> read, Swami Vireswarananda translator (Chapter 1, Section 3, Adikarana IX - <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-sutras" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-sutras</a>):</p> <blockquote> <p>Chapter I, Section III, Adhikarana IX</p> <p>Adhikarana summary: The right of the Sudras to the study of the Vedas discussed</p> <p>Brahma-Sutra 1.3.34: Sanskrit text and English translation.</p> <p>शुगस्य तदनादरश्रवणात्, तदाद्रवणात्, सूच्यते हि ॥ ३४॥</p> <p>śugasya tadanādaraśravaṇāt, tadādravaṇāt, sūcyate hi \|\| 34 \|\|</p> <p>śuk—Grief; asya—his; tat-anādaraśravaṇāt—from hearing his (the Rishi’s) contemptuous words; tat—that (grief); ādravaṇāt—owing to his approaching; sūcyate—is referred to; hi—because.</p> <ol start="34"> <li>His (King Janasruti’s) grief (arose) from hearing the contemptuous words (of the Rishi in the form of a swan); owing to his approaching (Raikva overwhelmed with) that (grief) (Raikva called him Sudra); because it (the grief) is referred to (by Raikva, who could read his mind).</li> </ol> <p>In the previous Sutra it has been shown that the gods are entitled to the Vedas and Knowledge. This Sutra discusses whether the Sudras are entitled to them or not. Since, like the gods, the Sudras also are possessed of a body, strength, and desires, it naturally follows that they too are entitled. In Chhandogya 4.2.5 Raikva at first calls Janasruti, a Sudra, when he comes for instruction with presents, which are refused. But when he appears a second time, Raikva again calls him a Sudra, but this time accepts his presents and teaches him. So it is maintained that the Sudras also are qualified for Knowledge.</p> <p>This Sutra refutes the view and denies the right to the study of the Vedas for a Sudra by caste, since the word ‘Sudra’ occurring in the text referred to does not denote a Sudra by birth, which is its conventional meaning, for Janasruti was a Kshatriya king (Chh. 4. 1 . 3). Here we must take the etymological meaning of the word, which is “He rushed into grief” or “He in his grief immediately approached Raikva.” The following Sutra also shows that he was a Kshatriya.</p> <p>Brahma-Sutra 1.3.35: Sanskrit text and English translation.</p> <p>क्षत्रियत्वगतेश्चोत्तरत्र चैत्ररथेन लिङ्गात् ॥ ३५ ॥</p> <p>kṣatriyatvagateścottaratra caitrarathena liṅgāt \|\| 35 \|\|</p> <p>kṣatriyatvagateḥ—(His) Kshatriyahood being unknown; ca—and; uttaratra—later on; caitrarathena liṅgāt—by the indicatory sign (of his being mentioned) along with a descendant of Chitraratha (a Kshatriya).</p> <ol start="35"> <li>And because the Kshatriyahood (of Janasruti) is known later on by the indicatory sign (of his being mentioned) along with a descendant of Chitraratha (a Kshatriya).</li> </ol> <p>Janasruti is mentioned with the Kshatriya Chaitraratha Abhpratarin in connection with the same Vidya, and so we can infer that Janasruti also was a Kshatriya, for as a rule equals alone are mentioned together.</p> <p>Brahma-Sutra 1.3.36: Sanskrit text and English translation.</p> <p>संस्कारपरामर्शात् तदभावाभिलापाच्च ॥ ३६ ॥</p> <p>saṃskāraparāmarśāt tadabhāvābhilāpācca \|\| 36 \|\|</p> <p>saṃskāra-parāmarśāt—Purificatory ceremonies being mentioned; tat-abhāva-abhilāpāt—its absence being declared; ca—and.</p> <ol start="36"> <li>Because purificatory ceremonies are mentioned (in the case of the twice-born) and their absence are declared (in the case of the Sudras).</li> </ol> <p>Purificatory ceremonies like Upanayana etc. are declared bv the scriptures to be a necessary condition of the study of all kinds of knowledge or Vidya; but these are meant only for the higher castes. Their absence in the case of the Sudras is repeatedly declared in the scriptures. “Sudras do not incur sin (by eating prohibited food), nor have they any purificatory rights” etc. (Manu 10 . 12 . 6).</p> <p>Consequently they are not entitled to the study of the Vedas.</p> <p>Brahma-Sutra 1.3.37: Sanskrit text and English translation.</p> <p>तदभाव tadabhāvanirdhāraṇe ca pravṛtteḥ \|\| 37 \|\|</p> <p>tadabhāva-nirdhāraṇe—On the ascertainment of the absence of that (Sudrahood); ca—and; pravṛtteḥ—from inclination.</p> <ol start="37"> <li>And because the inclination (on the part of Gautama to impart Knowledge is seen only) on the ascertainment of the absence of Sudrahood (in Jabala Satyakama).</li> </ol> <p>That Sudras are not qualified is known also from the fact that great teachers like Gautama made sure before imparting Knowledge that disciples like Jabala Satyakama were not Sudras. See Chh. 4. 4. 5.</p> <pre><code>Brahma-Sutra 1.3.38: Sanskrit text and English translation. </code></pre> <p>श्रवणाध्ययनार्थप्रतिषेधात् स्मृतेश्च ॥ ३८ ॥</p> <p>śravaṇādhyayanārthapratiṣedhāt smṛteśca \|\| 38 \|\|</p> <p>śravaṇa-adhyayana-artha-pratiṣedhāt—Because of the prohibition of hearing, studying, and understanding; smṛteḥ—in the Smriti; ca—and.</p> <ol start="38"> <li>And because of the prohibition in the Smriti of hearing and studying (the Vedas) and knowing their meaning and performing Vedic rites (to Sudras, they are not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman).</li> </ol> <p>Sutras 34-38 disqualify the Sudra for the knowledge of Brahman through the study of the Vedas. But it is possible for them to attain that knowledge through the Puranas and the epics (Ramayana and Mahabharata).</p> <p>The digression begun from Sutra 26 ends here and the general topic is again taken up.</p> </blockquote> <p>In Ramanuja's <em>Sri-Bhasya</em>, we see essentially the same verses and meanings. However, we see a slight difference here as the <em>Sri-Bhasya</em> has one more verse that reads (<em>Brahma-Sutras Sri Bhasya</em>, translation by Swami VIreshwarananda):</p> <blockquote> <ol start="39"> <li>And on account of Smriti texts (which prohibit hearing and studying of the Vedas by Sudras).</li> </ol> <p>Smritis also prohibit imparting Vedic knowledge to Sudras. 'He is not to teach him (a Sudra) sacred duties or vows.' (Manu IV. 80.).</p> </blockquote> <p>Who is Sudra? Who is not Sudra? Is Sudra by birth? Or by conduct?</p>
<p>I know the basics of Hinduism, about Brahman being the universal principle, the term used to describe the entire universe and life on Earth. I understand that through Bhakti and Yoga, one is able to attain moksha, liberty from the reincarnation cycle. I recognize various Deities' names (sometimes unique to different states), but sometimes I get a little confused with the relationship each Deity has with one another. I know the concepts of Artha, Kama, Ahima, Karma, Dharma, which absolutely fascinate and resonate with me the most. I also understand the Swarg and Nark are not the Heaven and Hell that everyone believes in Abrahamic faiths (they're temporary states of the mind after death, before reincarnation basically right?)</p> <p>However, when it comes to scriptures, I get REALLY confused. From my research, there are Shruti and Smriti texts. Shruti texts are considered most authoritative, and Smriti texts change depending on the Yugas, or time period. One time, I was browsing through internet, and I saw people exposing that child marriage was legal for Hindus (Vishnu Purana and Mahabharat) and it sorta dropped my heart a little bit. I asked someone and he mentioned that the life span for men especially was lower hundreds of years ago, thus such laws were implemented in society. Plus, the Puranas are Smriti, thus laws are to change depending on the time period. In today's day and age, people live until 100 years of age. I found a couple, controversial lines found in the ManuSmriti (I think Hindus themselves say this book sucks I’m not too sure though).</p> <p>My heart just gets let down easily when I start researching, because I come across so many pages that 'expose' Hinduism, especially by Muslims and Christians. Thankfully though, this website clarifies and debunks MOST of those accusations made against our faith. I remember reading "Genocide of Women in Hinduism" by Sita Agarwal, but various other people on this forum debunked or explained 75% of her lines. Moreover, I remember reading "Pedophilia in Hinduism" from an Islamic site, but after reading the first line (and the entire thing) that said Bramha married his daughter Saraswati, I knew that entire blog was stupid, because Saraswati is Bramha's consort/helper.</p> <p>I'm sorry that this is literally an essay, I just needed to get this off my chest. Anyways, where do I start reading scriptures, and what do I start reading? As I read scriptures, I will write down a chronological time period of WHEN it was written and HOW society was at the time, simply to get a better sense of why some controversial verses were written at that time. This will allow me to stand up against my faith, against Anti-Hindu people.</p> <p>Rajiv Malhotra's videos are helpful, and I came across a video that demonstrated how Sanskrit has a lot of non-translatable, but this brings me to a problem.. WHO and WHICH authors/websites do I trust when reading and buying scriptures.</p> <p>I think I'll start with reading the Bhagavad Gita, as it is very favoured amongst many Hindus AND Non-Hindus. But there's a problem, WHICH author do I trust to read scriptures from, who has translated such correctly.</p> <p>Glad to be back to my Hindu roots though (literally up until now I found out that Yoga is a HINDU thing, shame on myself)</p>	44026	44016	6	2	44016	2	How does one start in Hinduism?	4	44026	<p>I was like you, similar. Till 25 years I was an agnostic although a born Brahmin. When I came to the west around that time there weren’t any big groups etc. Now we see a lot of faith groups The best book that I found that helped me initially was “Hindu Dharma : The Universal way of life” by Chandrasekarendra Saraswati’s Tamil lectures translation. I bought that from Amazon. You can check that out. Most South Indian Brahmins would know him.</p> <p>Hindu Dharma: The Universal Way of Life <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/8172760558" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.amazon.com/dp/8172760558/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glc_fabc_Zts8FbN1P22WF</a></p> <p>Online PDF is available here</p> <p><a href="https://www.pdfdrive.com/hindu-dharma-the-universal-way-of-life-e14537656.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.pdfdrive.com/hindu-dharma-the-universal-way-of-life-e14537656.html</a></p> <p>One more Online version topic-wise here (Thanks @ram)</p> <p><a href="http://kamakoti.org/misc/hindudharma.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://kamakoti.org/misc/hindudharma.html</a></p> <p>He is a well read Sannyasin who renounced family life at a very young age and lived a 100 years. Nowhere else, I saw the breadth coverage. You do need breadth to put things in place when someone talks about a topic. For e.g what is Veda, Upanishad. Vedanta, Mimamsa, Vyakarana etc. not in depth at first but just the important aspects of that. Depth comes later. That book covers a lot of such topics in each of its chapters and each is a gist few pages so you get broad overview. And then you could search this site for e.g. . Do not get academic type books initially. Do not get a sect or cult oriented books initially. Use them to fill the gaps. This one is Sanatan dharma specific. Not Tantric or Agamic. That you read later. In fact this book covers some of that. Do not read Saivism books before the Vedic. The Sikh books (Saheb) cover gists of Upanishad, Do not delve into Upanishads right away. Get your Vedic understanding in order. You don’t want to start with Gita right away as well. Save the Puranas later as well. I got by without reading Mahabharata so far (since I’ve watched the old TV serial ). Bhakthi comes after understanding what is being taught...</p>
<p>Being inspired by this very extensive answer: <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/9205/22667">https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/9205/22667</a> to a question about Yugas, I would like to know if, applying all the human efforts and energies to sadhana and following the duties or renouncing to the fruits of our actions, as adviced in Bhagavad Geeta [Niskara Karma, renunciation of actions or Karma Yoga that is renunciation of fruits from the performed actions] one person can build a own inner peace of mind, which allow the practicioner of yoga to feel like in Satya Yuga, while living in Kali Yuga.</p> <hr /> <p>When you quote a Shastra, do provide</p> <p>• Evaluable link [e.g. BORI, Sanskrit Documents]</p> <p>• IAST (romanized) transliteration</p> <p>• Verbatim translations from Sanskrit to English [see greenmes.org to know what I mean]</p> <p>Thank you Sanātanī.</p> <p>I wish to add that Yog as experience is also evaluable as an answer, for me in this case.</p> <hr /> <p>Editing for Stack Exchange requirements:</p> <p>Some Smrtris passages, Mahabharata and Hindu daily life experiences of people are My pre-requisites. I am ok with the answers streams.</p>	44173	44066	7	2	44066	2	Is it possible to live like in Krita Yuga [Satya Yuga] for an individual, despite being in Kali Yuga?	6	44173	<p>As you may already know, in Hinduism Dharma is represented as a Bull having four feet. In Krita Yuga, the Bull has its four legs intact. So, Dharma is fully functional in that age. In Treta the Bull has 3 legs, in Dwapara 2 and finally in Kali Yuga the Dharma-Bull is standing on just one leg. In other words the Bull barely can stand and Dharma falls apart in Kali Yuga.</p> <p>From Manu Smriti:</p> <br> <blockquote> <p>1.81. In the Krita age Dharma is four-footed and entire, and (so is) Truth; nor does any gain accrue to men by unrighteousness.</p> <p>1.82. In the other (three ages), by reason of (unjust) gains (agama), Dharma is deprived successively of one foot, and through (the prevalence of) theft, falsehood, and fraud the merit (gained by men) is diminished by one fourth (in each)</p> </blockquote> <p>Now, since this very nature of the fact, that 3 out of the 4 pillars of Dharma are non-fuctional in Kali Yuga, can't be changed by anybody among us shows no matter how much we try we can't follow a Satya Yuga lifestyle in the Kali Yuga. Because the nature of the Yuga itself is such that it does not have all the pillars of Dharma intact in it.</p> <p>So, it is neither possible nor desired according to me. Because Yuga Dharma has to prevail.</p>
<p>Preface:</p> <p>I didn't find nowhere in the Shastras which I have read, nor in other books, if a person who was born inside a Western Country and feels devotion for Sanataan Dharma conducts of life, Devas and yog practices, can be truly regarded as Sanataani or Hindu by the Indians.</p>	44148	44076	1	2	44076	2	Can a non-Indian person trust Sanatan Dharma, follow it and so become Hindu?	4	44148	<p>The proof of the pudding is in eating. Find out about Sister Nivedita who was a disciple of Swami Vivekananda. Her European name is Margaret Noble. So the answer to your question is a resounding yes.</p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/sSWe9.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/sSWe9.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p> <p>A good discussion is in wikipedia.</p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Nivedita" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Nivedita</a></p> <p>I am posting some excerpts about Sister Nivedita.</p> <blockquote> <p>'Great things can be done by great sacrifices only!' averred Vivekananda. Nivedita - the Dedicated One - his illustrious disciple, did exactly that. She sacrificed her people, her country and her culture, to devote every breadth of her life for the cause she loved - at the command of her Guru, her mentor - serving India and its people. She showed Indians how to be truly Indian. She made the Hindus feel a few inches taller, by her overflowing love and admiration, for Hinduism which she vigorously propagated, a la Vivekananda!</p> <p>Margaret Elizabeth Noble - that was her original name - was born at Dungannon (Ireland) on October 28, 1867. Rev. Samuel Richmond Noble and Mary Isabel were her parents. ........</p> <p>Though she was deeply religious by nature and loved Jesus with all her heart, the Christian doctrines of the Church did not satisfy her spiritual hunger. Though the life and teachings of the Buddha, which she happened to read at that time, brought some solace to her troubled soul, the inner turbulence continued, leaving many a question unanswered.</p> <p>It was at this critical juncture of her love that she learnt of the arrival of a 'Hindu Yogi' whose discourses and personality had started casting a spell as it were, on the Londonites.</p> <p>Vivekananda visited England twice, the second visit being a much larger one. By listening to his talks and getting her doubts cleared through searching questions, for which she got scintillating answers, Margaret was now fully convinced of Vivekananda's greatness and accepted him as her spiritual Master.</p> <p>One day, when he was talking of his plan of work which included the upliftment of Indian women through proper education and training, and hinted that she could be of great help in the same, she felt an inner urge to accept the call.</p> <p>..............</p> <p>As per the direction of her teacher, she started in her newly acquired house in the same area, a school for girls. It was inaugurated by no less a person than the Holy Mother herself on the auspicious day (13th November 1898), Vivekananda and other members of the Ramakrishna Order also being present.</p> <p>............</p> <p>A severe epidemic of plague broke out in Calcutta in March 1899. As per the directions of Swami Vivekananda, Nivedita, with the help of some Swamis and volunteers, organised relief work excellently, thereby earning the gratitude of the people of the city. This was the maiden relief work of the Ramakrishna Mission.</p> <p>............</p> <p>Continuous travelling and hard work told upon her frail health. She fell seriously ill, once in 1905 and again in 1911. She passed away peacefully on the 13th October 1911, at Darjeeling.</p> <p>The place where her mortal remains were cremated, has a memorial with this inscription:</p> <p><strong>Here Repose the Ashes of Sister Nivedita (Margaret E. Noble) of the Ramakrishna Vivekananda, who gave her all to India. 13 October 1911.</strong></p> <p>Nivedita was a prolific writer. There are fifteen books penned by her which have been brought out as a set of volumes under the general title:</p> <p><strong>The Complete Works of Sister Nivedita Vol. I to IV</strong> during her centenary year (1967). Out of them the two books - <strong>The Master as I saw him</strong> and <strong>Notes on some wanderings with the Swami Vivekananda</strong></p> <ul> <li>give us a fascinating picture of the great Swami.</li> </ul> <p>If India is free today, the credit for inspiring her national leaders of the freedom movement, goes as much to Nivedita as to her guru, Swami Vivekananda.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>A Concise Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Volume 2, Swami Harshananda</strong></p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/4QatJ.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/4QatJ.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p> <p>A picture of the girl's school founded by Sister Nivedita</p>
<p>"The Ordainer controls the fate of souls in accordance with their past deeds - their prarabdha karma. Whatever is destined not to happen will not happen, try hard how you may. Whatever is destined to happen will happen, do what you may to stop it. This is certain. The best course, therefore, is for one to be silent."</p> <p>What does he mean by "be silent"? I'm new to his teachings but they bring me peace. Please explain.</p>	44607	44451	5	2	44451	2	Clarification on one of Ramana Maharshi's quote is requested	3	44607	<p>Beautiful answers and here is a more detailed answer.</p> <p>I guess you are aware of the background in which Maharshi Quotes(Wrote on a Paper)these words.</p> <blockquote> <p>At the outset, when Bhagavan left home, his family tried to trace him, but failed. Only some years later they discovered him at Tiruvannamalai. The Mother, not yet ripe to renounce the world and join him, went to persuade her son to return home. It was in December of 1898. At this time Bhagavan was not speaking and sat in apparent indifference to her pleas. One Pachaiappa Pillai who was nearby gave Bhagavan a paper and pencil and asked him to at least write a few words of consolation to his mother. He wrote briefly that whatever is destined to happen will happen. - <a href="https://archive.org/details/CollectedWorksOfRamanaMaharishi/page/n141/mode/2up?q=reply%20to" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ramana Maharshi Collected Works</a></p> </blockquote> <p>If we understand the context, Maharshi's mother was under the assumption that Bhagavan's act of leaving Home is volitional.So she was pleading him to return home using the same volition.</p> <p>Maharshi wrote these words to console her and as well as a spiritual instruction.</p> <p>Maharshi instructs that the fate of Jivas(Individuals) are controlled by Ordainer(Saguna Brahman/God)according to their past actions. The fruits of our actions are dispatched in a way beneficial to our spiritual progress. And our efforts to control the fruits(outcomes) of our actions by trying to prevent some events from happening and by trying to make some events to happen is futile. The best action therefore is to understand this fact and simply abide in oneself(Be As You Are / Abide in One's True(Own) Nature) without proliferating our egocentric actions.</p> <p>The quote resonates with following verses, one from Maharishi's Upadesa Saram and another from Bhagavad Gita.</p> <p>Upadesa Saram Verse 1: Action yields fruit, For so the Lord ordains it. How can action be the Lord? It is insentient.</p> <p>BG:18:61- The lord dwells in the hearts of all beings O Arjuna, and by his Maya causes all beings to revolve as though mounted on a machine.</p>
<p>PLEASE NOTE: I come from an irreligious/atheist family. We do not have any Ishta-DevatA or Kula-DevatA.</p> <p>Like most people from irreligious families, I am significantly ignorant of dharma. Would NAma-japa of any DevatA be beneficial for someone like me, who barely knows anything about our faith?</p> <p>Also, could you give any tips for increasing devotion?</p>	44467	44452	6	2	44452	0	Is nAma-japa beneficial?	3	44467	<p>This is a supplementary answer and not a primary answer as I do not consider myself an expert on this field.</p> <p>If I understand correctly, you ask whether nama-japa can contribute positively to your life and well being, if practiced, given your atheistic background, along with strategies to increase devotion.</p> <p>My answer in short, is yes it will benefit you. Now for the detailed answer: I would suggest you to read Hindu epics, which are most easily understood and do not contain any special terminologies/difficult concepts, and have stories/incidents which give you a glimpse into the Hindu way of looking at things, about Hindu ethics, spirituality, tradition. For example, if you are not from the Indian subcontinent, or maybe you are from an Indian, non-Hindu family, your way of looking at things will be radically different from the Hindu way. Let me illustrate with a few examples:</p> <p>The deep respect for elders and one's parents that is present in the Indian tradition is not present in most other traditions.<br/> The place of women is different in the Hindu society compared to the west. In India, a woman is not looked upon as an object, to be craved for lust, but she is looked as the loving mother who protects and nourishes every creature on this planet. <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/15138/what-is-hinduisms-view-on-porn/15336#15336">Reference</a> (answer by rickross has the appropriate references) Because of this reason, you will find that traditional women in India do not have the same dress code as their western counterparts and are dressed more modestly. In India, we have female goddesses as well and they are worshipped as the divine mother. Reference: <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/20485/who-is-mother-durga-why-was-she-prayed-by-all-gods-including-vishnu-to-be-rebor/20486#20486">Who is mother Durga, why was she prayed by all gods including Vishnu to be reborn as Parvathi?</a> <br/></p> <p>You should read some of these epics before starting any practice, else may face hurdles. Nama japa is a subconscious process that seeks to drive goodness and resilience deep inside your consciousness. If you don't imbibe the correct ideals before starting the process, the practice may be harmful for you. Some of the popular epics in our tradition are : Ramayana, Mahabharata, Shiva Purana, Bhagavatam, Vishnu Purana, etc.<br/> Now, if you are not from India/well versed in the Hindi language (any Indian language for that matter, say Marathi, Gujarati, Tamil, etc.), then you may find trouble finding the correct books. Hinduism has been under constant attack from greedy evangelizing religions who take every opportunity to attack Hinduism and show it in a poor light. Hence, you will find the market filled with ill-motivated so-called Hindu books, don't fall for them. Books by Gita publications are considered the authoritative versions. You may find Mahabharata and Ramayana books published by them. Alternatively, some modern Hindu authors have written some really nice books that seeks to preserve the essence of the epics, but making slight changes to make it readable by English language readers. Example: Parva, a retelling of the classical Mahabharata, by SL Bhyrappa, Ramayana by Ramesh Menon, Siva- The Siva Purana retold, etc.<br/> Here is a list of some good books on mantras/japa :</p> <ol> <li>The Mantram Handbook by Eknath Easwaran</li> <li>Japa Yoga by Swami Sivananda Saraswati</li> <li>Meditation and Mantras by Swami Vishnu Devananda <br/> Some other books that can help you understand the Hindu tradition and culture: Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, The gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Death by Sadhguru, Essence of the Upanishads by Eknath Easwaran, translation of Panjali's Yoga Sutra by Swami Vivekananda, titled - Raja Yoga.</li> </ol>
<p>If someone is inflicting pain on himself because he wants to get rid of bad karma, will he be able to get rid of bad karma like this?</p> <p>And is there any way to get rid of bad karma other than suffering its consequences?</p>	44563	44557	9	2	44557	5	Can you get rid of bad karma by self harm?	4	44563	<p>There are methods to reduce the effect of bad karmas.</p> <blockquote> <p>Yudhisthira says,'…a perpetrated sin is expiated by auspicious acts, by publishing it wildly, by repentance, by alms-giving, by penances, by trips to tirthas after renunciation of everything, by constant meditation on the scriptures. Of all these, he that has practiced renunciation is believed to be incapable of committing sins anew. '</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Mahabharata Santi Parva Section VII</strong></p>
<blockquote> <p>My dear followers, never treat a learned brāhmaṇa harshly, even if he has sinned. Even if he attacks you physically or repeatedly curses you, always continue to offer him obeisances.Just us I always carefully bow down to brāhmaṇas, so all of you should likewise bow down to them. I will punish anyone who acts otherwise.(Bhagavata 10.64.41-42)</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>With whatever limb the low-born man hurts a superior person, every such limb of his shall be cut off; this is the teaching of Manu.(Manu 8.279)</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>If he raises his hand or a stick, he should have his hand cut off(Manu 8.280)</p> </blockquote> <p>Doesn't our conscience say its against Basic human rules? And we do have many verses in scriptures saying be Kind,Compassionate to all beings and whoever Hurts others Hurts Hari for Hari alone is all beings.</p>	44624	44599	4	2	44599	3	Why are our scriptures contradicting so much? A Bramhana can beat anyone as he wishes?	5	44624	<p>Firstly as rightly said by <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/4732/rickross">RickRoss</a> and <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/11726/ikshvaku">Ikshvaku</a>, the verses are talking about punishment inflicted by kings for certain acts. Nowhere does scripture sanction Brahmins to beat lower caste people.</p> <p><strong>1. General view:</strong> <br>The general majority view of the Smritis (See <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201213.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">other comparative notes</a> to Manu 8.279 as well) seems to be only the injuring of a Brahmin being punishable by censuring the aggrieving limb:</p> <blockquote> <p>That limb of a non-Brāhmaṇa with which he <strong>hurts</strong> the Brāhmaṇa should he cut off. If he raises a weapon to strike him, he shall pay a fine of the first degree; if he only touches the weapon, then only half of that. <br> Yājñavalkya Smriti 2.215</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201213.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Manu 8.279</a>, cited in the question, too seems to make a similar indication, if one reads the actual Sanskrit verse:</p> <blockquote> <p>येन केन चिदङ्गेन हिंस्याच्चे<strong>त्श्रेष्ठ</strong>मन्त्यजः । छेत्तव्यं तद् तदेवास्य तन् मनोरनुशासनम् ॥ २७९ ॥</p> </blockquote> <p>The words ‘śreṣṭha’ (emboldened) is the superlative form meaning the highest, which in the case of Varnas again points towards Brahmins and not any superior caste. (If we don’t accept this view read point 3 below)</p> <p><strong>2. Explicit protection to Brahmins:</strong> <br>Firstly we can see that among the <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/2668/20129">different types of sins</a>, even injuring of a Brahmin is a serious sin, as also stated in the question. Probably the reason for this is the fact that Brahmins through great sadhana acquire great merits and are in possession of the most holy Vedic knowledge.</p> <p>As per <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc200680.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Manu 7.18</a> (citing half verse):</p> <blockquote> <p>Punishment governs all creatures; Punishment alone protects them</p> </blockquote> <p>To which Medhatithi’s Commentary states that ‘Punishment alone protects’— the weak against the strong.</p> <p>Also, Brahmins not being accustomed to arduous physical exertion are comparatively physically weaker than the lower castes (well at least warring Kshatriyas and labouring shudras). As a result to protect the physically weaker from the stronger as also for a king to deliver appropriate punishments against shastric sins, <strong>anyone (not being a Brahmin)</strong> attacking a Brahmin is to be punished harshly.</p> <p><strong>3. Not accepting the above view of ‘śreṣṭha’ being only Brahmins in Manusmriti</strong> <br>The commentary of Mitakshara 2.215 says:</p> <blockquote> <p>inasmuch as this lays down the cutting of the limb of a Śūdra who strikes any twice-born person, it follows, from the parity of reasoning, that this <strong>same punishment is to be inflicted upon the Vaiśya striking the Kṣatriya</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>So we can see that it is not strictly restricted to only Shudras injuring Brahmins. It talks of punishment to relatively lower caste for injuring any relatively upper caste as per Manu (not other Smritis)</p> <p><strong>4. Why such a harsh punishment?</strong> <br>We have to remember that hitting Brahmins is a sin as stated above and as such we also have to remember that it was the other person who harmed a physically weak holder of the most sacred knowledge. Before harming a Brahmin (who also has like everyone else has god in him) he should’ve thought that injuring a Brahmin is like injuring god. If injuring him by cutting his limb is injuring hari then so also is injuring a Brahmin. Who can stop Hari’s law of Karma from playing, especially through a king who has been entrusted with the task as such? If he hadn’t harmed the Brahmin such a punishment wouldn’t have been inflicted. Would it have? It is thus advisable for no one to hit anyone and in turn no one should be the first one to hurt god.</p> <p>Further not holding the ‘śreṣṭha’ as Brahmin view, a harsh punishment prescribed by Manu (besides the verse for protection cited above and also those cited by Rickross) also because:</p> <blockquote> <p>All the castes would become corrupt, all barriers would be broken through, and there would be disruption among all the regions,—if there were any mistakes in regard to punishment.—(7.24)</p> </blockquote> <p>Then again as <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/44618/20129">Rickross said</a></p> <blockquote> <p>we only have the option to either follow the scriptures or not follow them. With our limited understanding of things we are not in a position to question them.</p> </blockquote>
<p>According to Mahabharata.:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“śrīruvāca na mā̃ virōcanō vēda nāyaṁ vairōcanō baliḥ. āhurmā̃ duḥsahētyēvaṁ vidhitsēti ca mā̃ viduḥ.\|7 bhūtirlakṣmīti māmāhuḥ śrīrityēvaṁ ca vāsava. tvaṁ mā̃ śakra na jānīṣē sarvē dēvā na mā̃ viduḥ\|” (MBH 12:225:7-8)</em></p> <p><em>“Sree said, ‘Virochana did not know me. This Bali also that is the son of Virochana knows me not. The learned called me by the name of Duhshaha. Some knew me by the name of Vidhitsa. I have other names also, O Vasava! They are <strong>Bhuti, Lakshmi, and Sree.</strong> Thou knowest me not, O Sakra, nor doth any one among the deities know me”.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>When Indra asks her the reason behind her deserting Bali and asks if due to his(Indra's) acts or due to Bali’s any act, Sree says that it is nobody’s acts that can invite her or make her desert someone. She functions at the commands of Kala (mahakala).</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“śrīruvāca nō dhātā na vidhātā mā̃ vidadhāti kathañcana. kālastu śakra paryāgānmainaṁ śakrāvamanyathāḥ\|” (MBH 12:225:10)</em></p> <p><em><strong>“Sree said, ‘Neither the Creator(Brahma) nor the Ordainer(Vishnu) rules me. It is Kala(Shiva) that moves me from one place to another.</strong> Do not, O Sakra, disregard Bali."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Sree clearly says that neither the creator (dhata i.e., Brahma) nor the ordainer (vidhata i.e., Vishnu) rule her. She moves from one place to another at the command of Mahakala (Shiva).</p> <p>Go to <a href="http://www.mahapashupatastra.com/2014/11/the-unfading-glory-of-mahakala.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> for more info.</p> <p>So my question is why is that.?</p> <p><strong>Edit.:</strong></p> <p>I saw many people are saying that why <strong>kaala</strong> is being translated to <strong>shiva</strong> and some are saying <strong>purusha suktam</strong> says this and that. To clear all these confusions let me put some verses in this question only, so that I think it will make this question more clearer.</p> <p>.Shvetashvatara Upanishad makes this point very clear.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“sa viśvakṛd viśvavidātmayōnirjñaḥ <strong>kālakālō</strong> guṇī sarvavid yaḥ \| pradhānakṣētrajñapatirguṇēśaḥ saṁsāramōkṣasthitibandhahētuḥ \|” (Ṣvētāṣvatāra Upaniṣad 6:16) “He (i.e., Rudra) makes all, he knows all, the self-caused, the knower, <strong>the time of time (destroyer of time)</strong>, who assumes qualities and knows everything, the master of nature and of man, the lord of the three qualities (guna), the cause of the bondage, the existence, and the liberation of the world”</em></p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p><em>“sarvaanana shirogriivaH sarvabhuutaguhaashayaH \| sarvavyaapii sa bhagavaa.nstasmaat.h sarvagataH shivaH \|” (Svetaswatara Upanishad. 3:11) “<strong>All faces are His faces; all heads, His heads; all necks, His necks. He dwells in the hearts of all beings. He is the all— pervading Bhagavan. Therefore He is omnipresent Shiva”</strong>.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Vedas say that Maheshwara is beyond the Vedas and is the highest Brahman as follows.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“yo vedaadau svaraH prokto vedaante cha pratishhThitaH tasya prakR^itiliinasya yaH paraH sa <strong>maheshvaraH</strong> ” (Taittiriya Aranyaka 10.12.3.17) “That (being) who transcends (or is higher than) the syllable Om which is uttered at the commencement of the recital of the Vedas, which is well established in the Upanishads and which is dissolved in the primal cause during contemplation, is <strong>Maheshwara</strong>”.</em></p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>“mahādēvaṁ paraṁ brahmā ṣabdabrahmātanumparaṁ \|” (Shiva Purana 2:08:13) “That Mahadeva who is the supreme brahman is superior than the sabda-brahman”.</p> </blockquote> <p>In the Uttara Khanda of Padma Purana (Shiva Gita).</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“prāṇaḥ kālastathā mṛtyuramṛtaṁ bhūtamapyahama \| bhavyaṁ bhaviṣyatkṛtsnaṁ ca viśvaṁ sarvātmakō’pyahama \|” (Shiva Gita 6:26) “<strong>I’m the Prana (life force), I’m the time, death, and eternity. I’m the past, present and future. I’m everything indeed!</strong>”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Taittiriya Aranyaka of Yajurveda for vamdeva shiva state as follows.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“vāmadēvāya namō jyēṣṭhāya namaḥ śrēṣṭhāya namō rudrāya namaḥ <strong>kālāya namaḥ</strong> kalavikaraṇāya namō \|” (Taittiriya Aranyaka 10.18.1) “Salutation to Vamadeva. Salutation to Jyestha (the Eldest, existing before creation). Salutation to Srestha (the most worthy and excellent). Salutation to Rudra. <strong>Salutation to Kala</strong>. <strong>Salutation to Kalavikarana (He who causes changes in the evolution of the universe beginning with Prakriti)”</strong>.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Taittiriya Aranyaka of Yajurveda describes Supreme Brahman as follows.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“ṛtaṁ satyaṁ paraṁ brahma <strong>puruṣaṁ</strong> <strong>kṛṣṇapiṅgalam</strong> . ūrdhvarētaṁ virūpākśaṁ viśvarūpāya vai namō namaḥ \|” (Taittiriya Aranyaka 10.23.1) “Supreme Brahman, the Absolute Righteousness (rita) and Truth (satyam), is the <strong>Purusha</strong> <strong>dark and tawny</strong> in hue(ardhanareshwara), absolutely chaste (having semen raised up) and possessing uneven eyes (three eyed) . Salutations to Him alone who is the Soul of the universe, or whose form is the universe”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>In Mahabharata Mausala Parva when the time for the destruction of Yadava race (vrishni race) had come, then <strong>Lord Shiva as the Mahakala in his embodied (saguna) form started roaming in the Dwaraka city to end their race</strong> as stated below. Note the description of that embodied form – the dark and tawny <strong>(“kr̥ṣṇa-pingalaṁ”)</strong> form.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“vaiśampāyana uvāca ēvaṁ prayatamānānā̃ vṛṣṇīnāmandhakaiḥ saha. kālō gṛhāṇi sarvēṣā̃ paricakrāma nityaśaḥ \|1 karālō vikaṭō muṇḍaḥ puruṣaḥ kṛṣṇapiṅgalaḥ. gṛhāṇyāvēkṣya vṛṣṇīnā̃ nādṛśyata kvacitkvacit \|2 tamaghnanta mahēṣvāsāḥ śaraiḥ śatasahasraśaḥ. na cāśakyata vēddhũ sa sarvabhūtātyayastadā \|” (MBH 16:2:1-3) “[Vaishampayana said:] While the Vrishnis and the Andhakas were thus endeavouring (to avoid the impending calamity), <strong>the embodied form of Time (death) every day wandered about their houses. He looked like a man of terrible and fierce aspect. Of bald head, he was black and of tawny complexion</strong>. Sometimes he was seen by the Vrishnis as he peered into their houses. The mighty bowmen among the Vrishnis shot hundreds and thousands of shafts at him, but none of these succeeded in piercing him, for he was none else than the Destroyer of all creatures”.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Note that here the Mahakala who has been personified as death has been described as <strong>“mundaḥ” (bald)</strong> and <strong>kṛṣṇapiṅgalaḥ (dark and tawny)</strong>. We have already seen that kṛṣṇapiṅgalaḥ is an attribute of Bhagawan Shiva only. Now here we have another attribute described that is – he, the death god was bald. In fact Bhagawan Rudra appears as having matted locks of hair and also otherwise he appears as bald headed. In this connection we have <strong>Yajurveda itself hailing Rudra as having matted locks as well as who displays a bald head</strong> as follows.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“nama kapardine cha vyuptakesaya cha \|” (Yajurveda IV:5:5:d) “<strong>Salutations to him who has a crown of hair and to him who has a shaved head</strong>”.</em></p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Therefore now it is clear from above discussion that the Supreme Brahman described in Vedas a ‘Dark and tawny’ lord is the same bald headed Mahakala who appeared in the city of Dwaraka to put an end to their entire race.</strong></p> <p>According to Mahabharata.:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“That Being whom, at the time of all thy battles, thou beheldest stalking in thy van, know, O son of Kunti, is no other than Rudra, that god of gods, otherwise called by the name of Kaparddin. <strong>He is otherwise known by the name of Kala</strong>" (MBH 12:342:138-140)</em></p> </blockquote> <p>According to Shiva maha puranam.:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“brahmovāca \| yato vāco nivartaṃte aprāpya manasā saha yasmātsarvamidaṃ brahmaviṣṇurudreṃdrapūrvakam sahabhūteṃdriyaiḥ sarvaiḥ prathamaṃ saṃprasūyate eṣa devo mahādevaḥ sarvajño jagadīśvaraḥ ayaṃ tu parayā bhaktyā dṛśyate nā ‘nyathā kvacit \|” (Shiva Purana 1:3:10-12) “[Brahma replied]: – that without grasping which speech turns back along with the mind, <strong>from whom Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, together with all elements (and creatures) and senses, at first spring forth; That lord, Mahadeva is the omniscient and Ishwara (lord) of the universe</strong>. This Shankara can be grasped (or seen) through great devotion else he cannot be seen”.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>So it's clear from here that from shiva(kala) Brahmas', Vishnus' and Rudras' etc originates. So it can also be said that after pralaya they disappear in him only.</p> <p>Shivpuran says.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“asādhāraṇakarmā cha sr̥ṣtyādikaraṇātpr̥thak \| brahmāṇōpi ṣiraṣchhētā janakastasya tatsutaḥ \|121 janakastanayaṣchāpi viṣṇōrapi niyāmakaḥ \| bōdhakaṣcha tayōrnityamanugrahakaraḥ \|” (Shiva Purana 7:02:31:121-122) “His (Shiva’s) works are said to be uncanny because he (alone) carries out creation, preservation and destruction. He is the one who cut brahma’s head. He is the father of Brahma as well as his son. Similarly, He is the father of Vishnu as well as his son and he is also the controller of Vishnu. He confers knowledge on these two – Brahma and Vishnu and always showers his grace (upon them)”.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Which is also in sync with vedas.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“sá evá sáṃ bhúvanāny ā́bharat sá evá sáṃ bhúvanāni páry ait pitā́ sánn abhavat putrá eṣāṃ tásmād vái nā́nyát páram asti téjaḥ \|” (Atharva Veda 19:53:4) “He surely did bring hither all the beings (worlds), he surely did encompass all the beings (worlds). <strong>Being their father, he became their son</strong>; there is, verily, no other force, higher than he”.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>As for Purusha Shukran.:</p> <p>Purusha Sukta appeared first in Rig Veda 10.90. Narayana Maharshi was the 'Mantra Drashta'(seer) of the hymn. This Narayana Maharshi was later incarnated as Devaki putra Sri Krishna during Dwaparayuga. His counterpart Nara Maharshi was born as 'Arjuna'. By the grace of Lord Shiva, Narayana Mahrshi got the divine vision of Purusha. He was the first Human Rishi to realise the universal oneness and oneness of Atman in all beings. This non-dual knowledge made Narayana Rishi merge with Lord Shiva. Those who know Purusha will become, verily, like Purusha, the self of all beings.</p> <p>Sathapatha Brahmana of Shukla yajurveda describes how Narayana Rishi became one with Purusha.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>"puruṣo ha nārāyaṇo'kāmayata atitiṣṭheyaṃ sarvāṇi bhūtānyahamevedaṃ sarvaṃ syāmiti sa etam puruṣamedham pañcarātram yajñakratumapaśyattamāharattenāyajata teneṣṭvātyatiṣṭhatsarvāṇi bhūtānīdaṃ sarvamabhavadatitiṣṭhati sarvāṇi bhūtānīdaṃ sarvam bhavati ya evam vidvānpuruṣamedhena yajate yo vaitadevam veda" ( Sathapatha Brahmana 13:6:1:1)</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Meaning:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>"Purusha Narayana desired, 'Would that I overpassed all beings ! would that I alone were everything- here (this universe) !' He beheld this 'five days' sacrificial performance, the Purushamedha and took it and performed offering therewith ; and having performed offering therewith, he overpassed all beings, and became everything here. And, verily, he who, knowing this, performs the Purushamedha, or who even knows this, overpasses all beings, and becomes everything here."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>In Mahabharata, Anushasana parva Bishma pitamaha says to Yudhistira:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>Rudra bhakthya thu krishnena jagat vyaptham mahathmana, Tham prasadhya thadha devam bhadaryam kila bharatha.</em></p> <p><em>Arthath priya harathwam cha sarva lokeshu vai yadhaa, Prapthavaaneva rajendra suvarnaakshan maheswaraath.</em></p> <p><em>"The Krishna, due to his devotion to Supreme Lord Rudra, Has spread all over the universe, Oh Bharatha, Oh king of kings, After making Lord Shiva pleased by his penance in Bhadrinath, He has attained the state of being more dear, Than all the worlds and all aspects of knowledge."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>In Mahabaratha, Lord Shiva says :</p> <blockquote> <p><em>satyaśaucārjava tyāgais tapasā niyamena ca kṣāntyā bhaktyā ca dhṛtyā ca buddhyā ca vacasā tathā ( Mh Bhar 10.7.60)</em></p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p><em>yathāvad aham ārāddhaḥ kṛṣṇenākliṣṭakarmaṇā tasmād iṣṭatamaḥ kṛṣṇād anyo mama na vidyate ( Mh Bhar 10.07.61)</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Meaning:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>"With truth, purity, sincerity, resignation, ascetic austerities, vows, forgiveness, devotion, patience, thought, and word, I have been duly adored by Krishna of pure deeds. For this there is none dearer to me than Krishna".</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Purusha Sukta :</p> <blockquote> <p><em>sahasraśīrṣā puruṣaḥ sahasrākṣaḥ sahasrapāt \|</em> <em>sabhūmiṃ viśvato vṛtvātyatiṣṭhad daśāṅghulam \|\|</em> <em>sahasra - Thousands; ( Thousand implies uncountable )</em> <em>śīrṣā - of heads has;</em> <em>puruṣaḥ - the great being.</em> <em>sahasra -Thousands of</em> <em>aksha - eyes has he,</em> <em>sahasrapāt - and thousands of legs.</em> <em>sa - He</em> <em>vṛtvā - manifests</em> <em>bhūmiṃ - the world.</em> <em>ātyatiṣṭhat - e stands beyond</em> <em>daśāṅghulam - the count of ten fingers.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Meaning:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>A thousand heads hath Puruṣa, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet.</em> <em>On every side pervading earth he fills a space ten fingers wide.</em></p> </blockquote> <p><strong>The Taittirya Aranyaka(10:24:1) of Yajur Veda clearly says Lord Rudra is 'Veda Purusha' (purusho vai rudrah) Kaushitaki Brahmana (6:1:13) of Rig Veda calls Lord Rudra as <strong>"sahasrakha sahasrapat"</strong>. ( tata.udatiṣṭhat.sahasra.akṣaḥ.sahasra.pāt).</strong> The same thing is confirmed in Svetasvatara Upanishad.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>viśvataś cakṣur uta viśvato-mukho</em> <em>viśvato-bāhur uta viśvatas-pāt</em> <em>saṃ6 bāhubhyāṃ dhamati sampatatrair</em> <em>dyāv-ābhūmī janayan deva ekaḥ ( Sv Up III-3)</em> <em>"His eyes are everywhere, His faces everywhere, His arms everywhere, everywhere His feet. He it is who endows men with arms, birds with feet and wings and men likewise with feet. Having produced heaven and earth, this God (deva ekaḥ) remains as their non—dual manifestation.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>For more info visit <a href="http://hara-hara-mahadev.blogspot.com/2010/07/purusha-suktam-hymn-to-lord-rudra-also.html?m=1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>.</p> <p>According to purusha shuktam of yajurveda.:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>"<strong>Hri</strong> and <strong>Lakshmi(Sri)</strong> are thy (Purusha Rudra's) wives: each side of thee are <strong>Day</strong> and <strong>Night</strong>."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>According to Uma Samhita and Shiva Puran :</p> <blockquote> <p><em>"Satī and Pārvatī are Umā's direct incarnations (Rudranī). The first primordial Śakti of Śiva the great Brahman, who is called Umā, is the great mother of the three worlds. Her two incarnations — Satī and Haimavatī, have been heard, O intelligent Sūta. Please mention Her other incarnations <strong>(Mahākālikā; Mahālakṣmī; Mahāsarasvatī)</strong> too. (Umā Saṁhitā: 45:3-4)"</em></p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p><em>"<strong>Mahākālikā; Mahālakṣmī; Mahāsarasvatī are Umā's incarnation as warrior goddess</strong>. According to Śiva Purāṇa, Bhavānī Umā is the source of these three forms Navārṇa Caṇḍikā of Devī Māhātmyam, hence both Aṣṭādaśabhujā <strong>Mahālakṣmī (not to be confused with Viṣṇupatni Lakṣmī)</strong> as well as Bhavānī Umā are identified with one another by Śiva Purāṇa. (Umā Saṁhitā: Chapter 45-48)"</em></p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p><strong>Mahalakshmi is another name Goddess Parvati. Who is wife of lord Shiva. Real name is Ambabai Mahalakshmi she is Goddess Parvati. Kollapur Ambabai Mahalakshmi its Shaktipeet of Goddess Sati / Parvati not a wife of vishnu. Even devi kamla (lakshmi) one of the 10 mahavidhyas is a form of devi uma</strong> .</p> </blockquote> <p>The Chamunda Mantra of Maa Kali/Durga.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>"Om aim <strong>hrim</strong> srim Klim chamundaye viche" Om = lord shiva of creator and destroyer Aim = goddess saraswati of knowledge and wisdom Shreem = goddess lakshmi of wealth and luck <strong>Hreem = goddess pravati of divine mother</strong> Kleem = goddess maha kali of love and desire Chamundaye = The slayer of demons chand and mund Viche = shield us.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>So here we can see all these names belongs to maa durga/kali she is also called as "sri" and maa parvati as "hri".</p> <p>So from above we can conclude that purusha Rudra's two wives are maa Parvati and maa Kali/Durga. One is day (Maa Parvati as she is calm and giving in nature) and other is night (Maa Kali who is angrier and fierce in nature).</p> <p>Natsyashastra 3(86,87)</p> <blockquote> <p><em>"let mothers such as Sarasvati, Dhriti, Medha, <strong>Hri, Sri, Lakshmi</strong> protect you and give you success."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>As you can see here sometimes, sri is only refered to maa durga and not maa Lakshmi and hri always to maa parvati.</p> <p>Just like lord vishnu is called shrivatsa (the one with shree/lakshmi in his chest), lord shiva is also called as shrikantha (the one with shree/durga in his throat).</p> <p>I still have so many verses left to add but I think this is enough otherwise it will get double in length because it is lengthy as it is.</p> <p>So again my main question was why Maa Lakshmi only listens to Lord Mahakala is it because of him being the Supreme Brahman?</p>	49093	44653	0	2	44653	1	Why Maa Lakshmi says that neither Lord Brahma nor Lord Vishnu only Lord Shiva commands her to move from one place to another.?	4	49093	<p>Well I am answering my own question because I got some new proofs to validate the point of my own question.</p> <p>In the above verse It is said that no one but just Lord kala controls maa Lakshmi.</p> <p>It's gonna be a bit long so just read till the last.</p> <p>So what and who is kaala.? Where in sanskrit kala has 3 meanings - time, death and black (space) so lord shiva is also the lord of time and space and death. So Lord Shiva as Mahakaala is the Lord of Time, Death and Space himself. They areca fragments of him.</p> <p>Here is the quote from chapter six of Shiva Gita.</p> <blockquote> <p>“prāṇaḥ kālastathā mṛtyuramṛtaṁ bhūtamapyahama \| bhavyaṁ bhaviṣyatkṛtsnaṁ ca viśvaṁ sarvātmakō’pyahama \|” (Shiva Gita 6:26)</p> <p><strong>“I’m the Prana (life force), I’m the time, death, and eternity. I’m the past, present and future. I’m everything indeed!”</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>So from above verses it is proved that lord shiva is the lord of time, death and space(eternity). (For more on Kala I have given in question only after editing way back, see that).</p> <p>According to Ishwara Gita Chapter 4.:</p> <blockquote> <p>अहं हि सर्वशक्तीनां प्रवर्त्तकनिवर्त्तकः । आधारभूतः सर्वासां निधानममृतस्य च ॥ ४.२०॥ Meaning: - know me alone to be enforcer as well as withdrawer of all the potency, besides being support of all (potencies) I am the abode of immortality in the form of nectar.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>एका सर्वान्तरा शक्तिः करोति विविधं जगत् । आस्थाय ब्रह्माणो रूपं मन्मयी मदधिष्ठिता ॥ ४.२१॥ Meaning: - One of my potency, established in me and formulation of mine, situated in innerself of all beings, assumes the form of four-faced Bramha and creates various types of worlds.</p> <p>अन्या च शक्तिर्विपुला संस्थापयति मे जगत् । भूत्वा नारायणोऽनन्तो जगन्नाथो जगन्मयः ॥ ४.२२॥ Meaning: - My other potency, known as Anant (Infinite), Jagganath (Lord of Universe), assumes the form of Narayana for nurturing and sustaining the worlds.</p> <p>तृतीया महती शक्तिर्निहन्ति सकलं जगत् । तामसी मे समाख्याता कालाख्या रुद्ररूपिणी ॥ ४.२३॥ Meaning: - My third potency, <strong>which is formation of Rudra, by the name of Kala,</strong> is tamasi and it annihilates the entire creation</p> <p>पश्याम्यशेषमेवेदं वर्त्तमानं स्वभावतः । करोति कालो भगवान् महायोगेश्वरः स्वयम् ॥ ४.२९॥ Meaning: - Restrained to my own nature, I am witness of entire world. <strong>Mahayogeshwar Bhagawaan Kala</strong> creates the entire Creation.</p> <p>योगः सम्प्रोच्यते योगी मायी शास्त्रेषु सूरिभिः । योगेश्वरोऽसौ भगवान् महादेवो महान् प्रभुः ॥ ४.३०॥ Meaning: - who is refered as Yoga, Yogi and Maya by people well-versed in scriptures, is none other than <strong>Maha-Yogeshwar Lord Mahadeva.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>So According to Lord Shiva himself Brahma is his Rajasik form, Narayan is his Sattvik form and Kala is his Tamasik form.</p> <p>As for Lord Shiva he is Nirguna.</p> <p>Lord Krishna said about Lord Siva in the Anusashana Parva :</p> <blockquote> <p>"namo 'stu te śāśvatasarvayone; brahmādhipaṃ tvām ṛṣayo vadanti <strong>tapaś ca sattvaṃ ca rajas; tamaś ca tvām eva satyaṃ ca vadanti santaḥ"</strong>(MBH 13:15:30)</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>The blessed Krishna said, 'I saluted Mahadeva, saying,--Salutations to thee, O thou that art the eternal origin of all things. The Rishis say that thou art the Lord of the Vedas. The righteous say that thou art Penance, <strong>thou art Sattwa, thou art Rajas, thou art Tamas, and thou art Truth</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>So, Krishna has opined along with Great Sages that Lord Siva is NOT only the abode of the Tamas quality, He is the abode of the Sattwas, the Rajas and the Tamas quality.</p> <p>Further Vedas says that Lord Shiva is beyond all 3 gunas and is Nirgun Brahman.:</p> <blockquote> <p>"Maheshwara (Great Lord) who is Black and yellow rules with Avidya, Maya or Mula-Prakriti is Red(rajas)-White (sattvam)-& black(tamas) & that is co-existed with him [Shandilya Upanishad 3:01]</p> </blockquote> <p>As for Puranas being sattvik, rajasik and tamasik totally contradicts Mahabharata and bhagwat gita itself. These are all just sectatarian nonsense and nothing else. See <a href="https://harivallabha.blogspot.com/2018/06/classification-of-puranas.html?m=1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a> site it explains everything with proofs from mahabharata and vedas.</p> <p>Now, As for the finale.</p> <p>Do Lord Shiva really controls maa Lakshmi or is it just time. Though I have proved the time is Lord Shiva only. Plus here both creater and ordainer are mentioned so the 3rd will only be destroyer (kala/time/death). But still people have confusions regarding this so I am giving a direct verse which is said by Lord Shiva only to prove my point and yes it's Lord Shiva only who controls Maa Lakshmi and no one else.</p> <p>Ishwar Gita Chapter 6.:</p> <blockquote> <p>योऽपि नारायणोऽनन्तो लोकानां प्रभवाव्ययः । ममैव परमा मूर्तिः करोति परिपालनम् ॥ ६.१४॥ Meaning: - The endless Narayana, origin of world(s), is my (Lord Shiva's) best form and by my blessings he sustains entire creation.</p> <p>या च श्रीः सर्वभूतानां ददाति विपुलां श्रियम् । पत्नी नारायणस्यासौ वर्त्तते मदनुग्रहात् ॥ ६.३१॥ <strong>Meaning: - The goddess of wealth and dispenser of the same, who is the consort of Narayana, known as “Sri” also functions at my (Lord Shiva's) command alone.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Further, <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-mahabharata-mohan/d/doc826410.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mahabharata</a> also says that <strong>Mahadeva is the possessor of ‘Sri’</strong> and is identical with the deity of blazing flames viz. Agni (the cosmic Agni-Linga is the reference).</p> <blockquote> <p>“dyaurnabhaḥ pṛthivī khaṁ ca tathā caivaiṣa bhūpatiḥ \|</p> <p>sarvavidyēśvaraḥ śrīmānēṣa cāpi vibhāvasuḥ \|\|” (MBH 13:85:93)</p> <p>“He (Mahadeva) is Heaven, Firmament, Earth, and the Welkin. He is called the Lord of the Earth. He is the Lord whose sway is owned by all obstacles. <strong>He is endued with ‘Sri’</strong> and He is identical with the deity of blazing flames”.</p> </blockquote> <p>So, from the above verse it's fully crystal clear that it's Lord Shiva only who controls Maa Lakshmi alone. So, mahabharata is also in sync with it. So, I hope it's clear to everyone now and 2 reliable sources when compliments each other are always right. Period. .</p>
<p>I live in central India and I haven't met many people who only worship one particular deity or God. They may be partial to one over others, but they worship all dieties. Most temples also contain multiple idols.</p> <p>I wonder if there are any benefits to this path of God realisation over worship of one single deity.</p>	44741	44735	11	2	44735	4	Is it more helpful in any way to worship multiple deities?	3	44741	<p><em><strong>The answer to this question becomes more of an open-ended opinion-based discussion rather than one with a definitive & authoritative answer .</strong></em> So brace up for a long answer.:))</p> <p>As it is with the <em>Sanātana Dharma</em> aka Hinduism, there's no singular monolithic directive authority, since it being more of a loose conglomerate of various Schools of Thought and Sects (<em>saṃpradāya</em>). Thus the view and perspectives on whom or what to worship may change with place, time, the person you have considered as your "guide" and/or <em>guru</em>, etc.</p> <p>The oldest of Vedic Texts aka the <strong>Rigveda</strong> says :-</p> <blockquote> <p>Ekam sat viprā bahudhā vadanti <br> <em>एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति</em> ।</p> </blockquote> <p>i.e. The Truth is one, the wise express it in numerous ways. [Rig Veda Samhita, 1.164.46].</p> <p>There's a famous <strong>Subhāshitam</strong> (<em>सुभाषितम्</em> - a sanskrit aphorism or maxim), which can also be found in several concluding parts of phal śrutis (<em>फल श्रुति</em> ) in <em>Shri Vishnu Sahashranamam Stotram (श्रीविष्णुसहस्रनामस्तोत्रम् )</em>.</p> <blockquote> <p>ākāśāt patitaṃ toyaṃ yathā gacchati sāgaram \| sarvadevanamaskāraḥ keśavaṃ prati gacchati \|\|</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p><em>आकाशात् पतितं तोयं यथा गच्छति सागरम्</em> ।<br> <em>सर्वदेवनमस्कारः केशवं प्रति गच्छति</em> ॥</p> </blockquote> <p>Meaning:- As all the raindrops falling from the sky ultimately meet their end in the ocean, the worship of any divine God ultimately reach the one Supreme Lord.</p> <p>In <strong>Srimad Bhagvad Geeta [BG. 7.21]</strong>, the God says:-</p> <blockquote> <p>yo yo yāḿ yāḿ tanuḿ bhaktaḥ śraddhayārcitum icchati ।<br> tasya tasyācalāḿ śraddhāḿ tām eva vidadhāmy aham ॥</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p><em>यो यो यां यां तनुं भक्तः श्रद्धयार्चितुमिच्छति।<br> तस्य तस्याचलां श्रद्धां तामेव विदधाम्यहम्।।</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Meaning: Whatsoever form any devotee desires to worship with faith that (same) faith of his I make firm and unflinching.</p> <p>Thus, in a way you’re basically worshipping the same “deity” in different forms. <em>(Obviously, there can be several other interpretations to all of the above verses leading to different perspectives and interpretations which itself innately leads to the heterogeneity within Hinduism ).</em></p> <p>The parable of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Blind men and an elephant</a>, explains the above viewpoint of everything there is, as a manifestation of one Ultimate truth, quite effortlessly.</p> <p>Now question is</p> <blockquote> <p>I wonder if there are any benefits to this path of God realisation over worship of one single deity.</p> </blockquote> <p>As interpreted above, since ultimately it's the same Supreme entity you're worshipping (through whatsoever method or to whosoever be it) So, does it matter at the end which path was taken when the destination to be reached is indeed same.</p> <p>Another interesting interpretation regarding the Significance of worshipping multiple deities which I have always heard from my elders and watched (in some form or another) is the <strong>"Analogy of a Nation"</strong>.</p> <p>If the Supreme Brahman - परब्रह्म, [ which might or might not get a Specific deity name (with some attributes or not - saguṇa or nirguṇa ) such as ādi Shakti or Para Shiva or Vishṇu/Nārayaṇa/Para Vāsudeva, etc - depending on the fundamental thelogical and philosophical views of the concerned sect ], is to be considered as the Head of the Nation then consider all the other deities (as per that particular sects' sectarian defined hierarchies) as working under the command of that Supreme Brahman - S.B. (who can be thought of as the Prime Minister in the Indian context)</p> <p>As the PM distributes various portfolios to his different ministers, so does our S.B. , who have distributed all various departments of the universal existence to different Gods/ Demigods/ Deities, etc. So, like if you want your Driving License to be made, you won't go the Prime Minister directly rather approach the local government administration officer. Thus, if we want a particular desire of ours to be fulfilled we must pray to the deity in charge of. For example: Remove Obstacles = Lord Gaṇesha, Wealth & Prosperity = Goddess Lakṣmī, Knowledge and Arts = Goddess Sarasvatī, etc.</p> <p>On the contrary if you have direct connection with the P.M. chances of you being in an ever blissful and happy state, increases manifold and thus no requirement for pleasing any administrative officials.</p> <p>I have always found this analogy silly in some form or other, but in some strange ways it seems to work (at-least for me).</p> <p>Moreover, generally the Supreme God of any of the sects in hinduism are always the final goal to be attained or learned by the beleiver. So if that's your aim, then only one Supreme God need be worshipped perhaps.</p> <p>Of the Four Puruṣārtha (पुरुषार्थ) - Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha (liberation, spiritual values), Moshka is generally considered as the final goal of our life to be attained (as per all school or sects), which in general, can only be provided by the Supreme Deity of the particular sect. In that way, it seems more logical that you worship only the Supreme God (S.B.), in whatever form you might like or whatever school of thought or sects' ideas influence you the most.</p> <p>Generally, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smarta_tradition" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Smarta Tradition - (स्मार्त)</a> , whose founder is generally attributed as the <em><strong>Adi Guru Shankaracharya</strong></em>, is considered as the blend of all the core philosophies of Hinduism and <em><strong>advocates for multiple deities worship</strong></em> in some form of other along with ones' own personal tutelary deity <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%ADa-devat%C4%81_(Hinduism)" rel="nofollow noreferrer"> [इष्टदेवता, iṣṭa-deva] </a>.</p> <p>So, to conclude, depending on ones' material and/or spiritual desires and affinities one may choose their deities for worshipping.</p>
<p>Mahabharata repeatedly talks about "deceit" in a dice game where Yudhistira lost. The Ganguly translation quotes Yudhistira saying "<em>Thou hast won this stake of me by unfair means</em>" (section SECTION LX; Book 2). But there aren't any more details on unfair/deceit by Kauravas. After the game, there is constant mention of <em>deceit</em> but no further details.</p> <p>Or, are there any other references/details on the "deceit" by Shakuni in that game? I am looking for <strong>details</strong> of the unfair means/deceit.</p> <p>The only reference, in Vana Parva, is where Yudhistira says he did not have knowledge of the game of dice (and Shakuni was skilled). Is this considered deceit if the opponent is not skilled?</p>	45584	44778	15	2	44778	3	Deceit in dice game	4	45584	<p>The dice game was considered as unfair and deceit because Yudhistira was not skilled to play.</p> <p>Krishna says this in Karna parva when Karna asks for time to lift his car wheels and reminds as it is unfair to shoot on unarmed. Similarly, Krishna repeats again Shalya parva [1], while responding to Duryodana's claim that his warriors were slain unfairly.</p> <blockquote> <p>Thou hadst, through Subala's son well-versed in dice, unfairly vanquished the virtuous Yudhishthira <strong>who was unskilled in gambling</strong>!</p> </blockquote> <p>So, it's unfair and deceitful to gamble with someone unskilled.</p> <p>[1] <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m09/m09061.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m09/m09061.htm</a></p>
<p>What are the main differences between these yogic virtues:</p> <p><em>Yama</em>, <em>Niyama</em>, <em>Asana</em>, <em>Pranayama</em>, <em>Pratyahara</em>, <em>Dhyana</em>, <em>Dharana</em>, <em>Samadhi</em>.</p>	44788	44780	5	2	44780	5	Differences in Yogic Virtues	3	44788	<p>The <a href="https://www.astrojyoti.com/devigita-5.htm" rel="noreferrer">Devi Bhgavatam's 7th book's 35th chapter</a> talks about these details of Yoga and Mantra Siddhi. Yoga is known to have eight limbs namely: Yama, Niyama, Asana, Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi.</p> <p>Yama includes non-injury, non-stealing, continence, compassion etc. Niyama includes Tapasya, Santosha (contentment), Astikya etc. Asanas are the Yogic postures like Padma, Swastika, Vira etc. Pranayama is about controlling the breath or Prana. Pratyahara is detaching the senses from their respective objects. Dharana is fixing the Prana at various points of the body. Dhyana is meditation and Samadhi is the ultimate step of Yoga signifying union of Jiva with the Paramatma.</p> <p>Quoting the necessary verses from the aforementioned Purana:</p> <br> <blockquote> <ol> <li>Himâlayâ said :-- "O Mahes'varî! Now tell me the Yoga with all its Amgas (limbs) giving the knowledge of the Supreme Consciousness so that, I may realise my Self, when I practise according to those instructions. 2-10. S'rî Devî said :-- "The Yoga does not exist in the Heavens; nor does it exist on earth or in the nether regions (Pâtâla). Those who are skilled in the Yogas say that the realisation of the identity between the Jivâtma and the Paramâtmâ is "Yoga." O Sinless One! The enemies to this Yoga are six; and they are lust, anger, greed, ignorance, vanity and jealousy. The Yogis attain the Yoga when they become able to destroy these six enemies by practising the accompaniments to Yoga. Yama, Niyama, Âsana, Prânâyâma, Pratyâhâra, Dhâranâ, Dhyâna, and Samâdhi, these are the eight limbs of Yoga. Yama includes Ahimsâ (noninjuring; non- killing); truthfulness; Asteyam (non-stealing by mind or deed); Brahmacharya (continence); Dayâ (mercy to all beings); Uprightness; forgiveness, steadiness; eating frugally, restrictedly and cleanliness (external and internal). These are ten in number. Niyama includes also ten qualities :-- (1) Tapasyâ (austerities and penances); (2) contentment; (3) Âstikya (faith in the God and the Vedas, Devas, Dharma and Adharma); (4) Charity (in good causes); worship of God; hearing the Siddhântas (established sayings) of the Vedas; Hrî or modesty (not to do any irreligious or blameable acts); S'raddhâ (faith to go do good works that are sanctioned); (9) Japam (uttering silently the mantrams, Gâyatrîs or sayings of Purânas) and (10) Homam (offering oblations daily to the Sacred Fire). There are five kinds of Asanas (Postures) that are commendable: Padmâsan, Svastikâsan, Bhadrâsan, Vajrâsan and Vîrâsan. Padmâsan consists in crossing the legs and placing the feet on the opposite thighs (the right foot on the left thigh and the left foot on the right thigh) and catching by the right hand brought round the back, the toes of the right foot and catching by the left hand brought round the back the toes of the left foot; sitting then straight and with ease. This is recommended by the Yogis (and by this one can raise oneself in the air)</li> </ol> </blockquote> <br> <blockquote> <p>Taking in the breath by the Idâ (the left nostril) so long as we count "Om" sixteen, retaining it in the Susumnâ so long as we count "Om" sixty-four times and then exhaling it slowly by the Pingalâ nâdi (the right nostril) as long as we count "Om" thirty-two times. (The first process is called Pûraka, the second is called Kumbhaka, and the third is called Rechaka). This is called one Prânâyâma by those versed in the Yogas. Thus one should go on again and again with his Prânâyâma. At the very beginning, try with the number twelve, i. e., as we count "Om" twelve times and then increase the number gradually to sixteen and so on. Prânâyâma is of two kinds :-- Sagarbha and Vigarbha. It is called Sagarbha when Prânâyâma is performed with repeating the Ista Mantra and Japam and meditation.</p> </blockquote> <br> <blockquote> <p>21-30. Now comes Pratyâhâra. The senses travel spontaneously towards their objects, as if they are without anyone to check. To curb them perforce and to make them turn backwards from those objects is called "Pratyâhâra," To hold the Prâna Vâyu on toes, heels, knees, thighs, sacrum genital organs, navel, heart, neck, throat, the soft palate, nose, between the eyebrows, and on the top of the head, at these twelve places respectively is called the "Dhâranâ." Concentrate the mind on the consciousness inside and then meditate the Ista Devatâ within the Jîvâtmâ. This is the Dhyâna. Samâdhi is identifying always the Jîvâtmâ and Paramâtmâ. Thus the sages say. (Samâdhi is of two kinds (1) Samprajñâta, or Savikalpak and (2) Nirvikalpak. When the ideas the Knower, Knowledge and the Thing Known, rernain separate in the consciousness and yet the mind feels the one Akhanda Sachchidânanda Brahma and his heart remains, there, that is called Samprajñâta Samâdhi; and when those three vanish away and the one Brahma remains, it is called Asamprajñâta Samâdhi). Thus I have described to you the Yoga with its eight limbs.</p> </blockquote>
<p>Much like the sadhu that is allowed to skin the tiger if it died naturally, is it written anywhere in scripture that eating flesh from an animal that died naturally is allowed?</p>	44832	44831	13	2	44831	9	Is eating meat allowed if the animal died naturally?	3	44832	<blockquote> <p>Manu Smriti 5.48. <strong>Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures</strong>, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; <strong>let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.</strong></p> </blockquote> <br> <p>From the above, it is clear that the reason why meat eating is not recommended is because it involves Ahimsa (injury to other beings).</p> <p>But, when the animal has naturally died, there is no Ahimsa involved and the above prohibition or reasoning is not applicable.</p> <blockquote> <p>Is eating meat allowed if the animal died naturally?</p> </blockquote> <p>From the above discussion it should not be prohibited. But there can be other concerns regarding eating such meat like hygiene or others. Because a being dies naturally out of old age or diseases.</p> <p>However, note that the verse given above does not even take into consideration the option that "meat can be obtained WITHOUT injuring the animal". So, eating meat of an animal which has naturally died may not be even an option as per the scriptures.</p>
<p>Brahman is defined as Existance,Consiouness and Bliss(Satchitananda). Aitareya Upanishad 3.1.3 says Brahman is consciousness and pure awareness. Isa Upanishad 1 says its all pervading.</p> <p>1)But how can Brahman or Awareness or Consciousness be there and be all pervading in Non Living things like Pots,Ornaments etc which have no sence of awareness or Atman?</p> <p>2)How can Brahman be all pervading as Isa Upanishad says when its just pure awareness ? It only exists individually as Awarness or life force or Atman in all beings. Atman is just awarness. I am not the body,mind,intellect. This same I is in all. How does that mean this awareness is all pervading??? How can a concept like Brahman exist? There cannot be a principle which is awareness and all prevading.</p> <p>3)What is Sat feature of Brahman?? What exactly is that existence that is conscious of all things including non living things??</p> <p>4)How to see one's self alone in all non living things which don't have Atman and in what sense whole Universe is our body as per Bramha Vidya Meditations??</p>	44972	44919	6	2	44919	4	How can Brahman/consciousness be all pervading including living and non living things?	4	44972	<p>Brahman is both the nimitta-kāraṇa (efficient cause) and upādāna-kāraṇa (material cause) of the universe. Otherwise, definition of Brahman is meaningless. If Brahman was not everything, then it would mean there is a second pole of power that Brahman has to contend with or be dependent on.</p> <p>But as we see from Upanishads, Brahman is everything that exists.</p> <p>Brhadaranyaka 1.4.10:</p> <blockquote> <p>ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत् -- "Brahman indeed was all this in the beginning"</p> </blockquote> <p>And Brahman became all the various differentiated aspects of the universe:</p> <p>Taittiriya 3.1:</p> <blockquote> <p>तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः संभूतः । आकाशाद्वायुः । वायोरग्निः । अग्नेरापः । अद्भ्यः पृथिवी । पृथिव्यामोषधयः । etc.<br><br> From this Atman, space came out, etc... all the way to earth, plants, humans, etc.</p> </blockquote> <p>Taittiriya 3.6:</p> <blockquote> <p>तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत् । तदनुप्रविश्य सच्च त्यच्चाभवत् निरुक्तं चानिरुक्तं च निलयनं चानिलयनं च विज्ञानं चाविज्ञानं च ... । <br><br> Having made it (the universe), he entered it... he became both gross and subtle, both well-defined and not-well-defined, both supporting and non-supporting, both conscious and non-conscious...</p> </blockquote> <p>So by definition, Brahman expresses the nature of <em><strong>everything</strong></em> in the universe. So the meaning of "consciousness" in relation to Brahman's definition is not the narrow meaning as applicable to humans and animals.</p> <p>This is the confusion that Maitreyi also had when Yajnavalkya was explaining Brahman to her.</p> <p>Brhadaranyaka 2.4.13:</p> <blockquote> <p>सा होवाच मैत्रेय्यत्रैव मा भगवानमूमुहन्न प्रेत्य संज्ञास्तीति स होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यो न वा अरेऽहं मोहं ब्रवीम्यलं वा अर इदं विज्ञानाय ।<br><br> Maitreyi said, "You confused me here, by saying that there is no consciousness after death." Yajnavalkya replied, "My dear, I haven't said anything confusing. It (Brahman) is quite complete in knowledge/awareness."</p> </blockquote> <p>So, consciousness in humans is only one mode of Brahman. This is the mode that is available to us to realize Brahman.</p> <p>In and by itself, Brahman, being everything, knows everything as itself, because there is nothing other than it. This is its mode as <em><strong>sat</strong></em> (existence) because it is everything that exists. Because it is everything that exists, it knows everything, because there is nothing left to know. This is its mode as <em><strong>cit</strong></em> (knowledge). These are mutually complementary.</p> <p>The finer detail here is that existence implies knowledge and vice-versa. Because, even to recognize the state of non-existence, i.e. to say "nothing exists", there needs to be an observer that makes that observation. So absolute non-existence is impossible. Hence, the absolute existence and absolute knowledge of Brahman is logically self-evident.</p> <p>Obviously, if Brahman is everything that exists, it is "all-pervading".</p> <p>By realizing that our own innermost eternal reality is this Brahman, we become one with everything that exists. Obviously, our physical bodies are limited.</p>
<p>There are over 200 Upanishads but the traditional number is 108. Of them, only 10 are the principal Upanishads: Isha, Kena, Katha, Prashan, Mundaka, Mandukya, Tattiriya, Aitareya, Chhandogya and Brihadaranyaka. This book is a forerunner in introducing these primary Upanishads to the uninitiated. <a href="https://rupapublications.co.in/books/the-ten-principal-upanishads/#:%7E:text=There%20are%20over%20200%20Upanishads,primary%20Upanishads%20to%20the%20uninitiated" rel="noreferrer">(Source)</a> .</p> <p><strong>So what makes a major upanishad a major upanishad, what are qualifications and criteria for a major upanishad</strong>.</p>	44981	44980	6	2	44980	9	Why is a major upanishad called "major upanishad"?	3	44981	<p>This classification must have originated from the way the Upanishads' "importance" are described in the <a href="http://www.vedarahasya.net/muktika.htm" rel="noreferrer">Muktika Upanishad (linked to Shukla Yajurveda)</a>, which lists the names of the 108 Upanishads.</p> <br> <blockquote> <p>Hanuman: How many are the Vedas and how many branches do they have ? Of these what are the Upanishads ?</p> <p>Rama: Vedas are four, Rig-Veda etc., many branches and Upanishads exist in them. Rig-Veda has 21 branches and Yajus has 109. Sama has 1000 and Atharva has 50. Each branch has one Upanishad. Even by reading one verse of them with devotion, one gets the status of union with me, hard to get even by sages.</p> <p>I-i-15-17. Hanuman: Rama, sages speak differently: some say there is only one kind of liberation. Others say it can be got by worshipping your name and by the Taraka mantra at Kashi. Others speak of Sankhya-Yoga and Bhakti-Yoga, the enquiry into Vedanta-Vakyas etc.</p> <p>I-i-18-23. Rama: Liberation is of four kinds: Salokya etc. But the only real type is Kaivalya. Anybody even though leading a wicked life, attains Salokya, not other worlds, by worshipping my name. Dying in the sacred Brahmanala in Kashi, he will get the Taraka-mantra and also liberation, without rebirth. On dying anywhere (else) in Kashi, Maheshvara will utter the Taraka-mantra in his right ear. He gets Sarupya with me as his sins are washed away.</p> <p>The same is called Salokya and Sarupya. Persevering in good conduct, with mind fixed upon me, loving me as the Self of all, the twice-born gets nearer to me – This is called the three forms of liberation. Salokya, Sarupya and Samipya.</p> <p>I-i-24-25. Meditating on my eternal form as prescribed by the Teacher, one will surely achieve identity with me like the insects changing into the bee. This alone is the liberation of identity (Sayujya) yielding the bliss of Brahman.</p> <p>All these four kinds of Mukti will be got by worshipping Me.</p> <p>I-i-26-29. But by what means is the Kaivalya kind of Moksha got ? <strong>The Mandukya is enough; if knowledge is not got from it, then study the Ten Upanishads.</strong> Getting knowledge very soon, you will reach my abode. If certainty is not got even then, study the 32 Upanishads and stop. If desiring Moksha without the body, read the 108 Upanishads. Hear their order.</p> <p>I-i-30-39. <strong>1. Isa 2. Kena 3. Katha 4. Prasna 5. Munda 6. Mandukya 7. Taittiri 8. Aitareya 9. Chandogya 10. Brihadaranyaka</strong></p> <ol start="11"> <li><p>Brahma</p> </li> <li><p>Kaivalya</p> </li> <li><p>Jabala</p> </li> <li><p>Svetasva</p> </li> </ol> </blockquote> <br> <p>As you can see, according to Muktika, the highest knowledge is obtained from Mandukya alone. If that is not possible, then recommendation <strong>is to study the (first) ten (in the list given)</strong>. From this people have probably concluded that those 10 are the principal/major (Mukhya) Upanishads and the rest are Gaunya or minor. However, in reality most people consider not just 10 but 12/13 Upanishads as major.</p>
<p>Different schools of thought in Hinduism have different ways to attain Moksha.</p> <p>Do any school believe in "there way is only way"?</p> <p>And do the different schools believe that people that believe in other schools can not attain Moksha. For example : Do Dvaita Vedanta believe people who believe in nastika or Samkhya philosophy can not attain Moksha.</p> <p>Because dvaita believes in devotion(worship) but Samkhya believe in meditation.</p>	45050	45025	8	2	45025	3	Do the different schools of thought in Hinduism believe that where way of getting moksha is the only correct way and others are wrong?	3	45050	<p>The various Vedantic sects are divided into those that consider Brahman to be different from Jiva (dualists) and those that consider them to be identical (non-dualists). Most of these schools acknowledge that people following other schools can attain high spiritual states. What nondualists are not sure of is whether dualists must have the experience of Nirvana. Similarly dualists are not sure if nondualists can experience the intense bliss enjoyed by the dualists.</p> <blockquote> <p>Mahima: "I have a question to ask sir. <strong>A lover of God needs Nirvana (total annihilation of ego -- the ideal of the jnani) some time or other, doesn't he?</strong></p> <p>Master: "It can't be said that bhaktas need Nirvana. According to some schools there is an eternal Krishna and there are His eternal devotees. Krishna is spirit embodied, and His abode is also spirit embodied. Krishna is eternal and His devotees are also eternal."</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Chapter 41, At Ram's House</strong></p>
<p>Vedas are considered to be shruti because it has divine origin. Is there any law book that can be considered as shruti, like manu Smriti(<em>I know it is Smriti it is just an example</em>).</p> <p>Or the law book that deriv it law from vedas.</p>	45039	45037	5	2	45037	3	Is there any shruti law book in Hinduism?	3	45039	<blockquote> <p>Is there any shruti law book in Hinduism?</p> </blockquote> <p>The shruti "lawbook" is the Brahmana section of the Vedas. This is the basis on which the Dharma shastras are written. The Brahmanas describe how to conduct yajnas (rituals), how to use the Samhita mantras in the yajnas, and also Dharma in general.</p> <blockquote> <p>Āpastamba (1.4.10) — ‘the injunctions are those laid down in the Brāhmaṇas’</p> </blockquote> <p>Medieval Manusmriti commentator Medhatithi <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc145579.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">says</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>This Dharma is learnt from such passages in the Brāhmaṇas as containing the ‘liṅ’ [Sanskrit injunctive verb form] and other injunctive expressions.</p> </blockquote> <p>But injunctions (vidhi) are not only found in the Brahmanas; they are also found in the Samhitas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads, but they are mainly found in the Brahmanas.</p> <p>Some vidhis mentioned in the Brahmanas:</p> <blockquote> <p>Therefore, there are several wives for one man, but not several husbands for a woman simultaneously - Aitareya Brahmana III. 3.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>That which was impure came out afterwards, wine is that ampurity, this became attached to the Kshatriya, hence it is that superiors, daughters-in-law, and the father-in-law drink the wine and go on talking; evil indeed is impurity, hence the Brahmana, should not drink the wine; lest he be attached to evil - Brahmana texted cited by Kumarila Bhatta in Tantra Vartika</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>The Kshatriya should say to the Brahmana - "the drinking of wine does no harm to him who knows this" - Brahmana texted cited by Kumarila Bhatta in Tantra Vartika</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>When a Shudra woman is the mistress of an Arya, she does not seek wealth for prosperity. Therefore, the priests do not bestow royal consecration on the son of a Vaishya woman. - Ashwamedha section, Taittiriya Brahmana</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>He who is about to enter on the vow, touches water while standing between the Âhavanîya and Gârhapatya fires, with his face turned towards east. - Shatapatha Brahmana, first verse.</p> </blockquote> <p>And many more verses like this.</p>
<p>Why do enlightened people contradict each other? For example, Adi Shankara was enlightened and he taught Advaita Vedanta, while Mahavira (founder Of Jainism) was also enlightened and he taught and Jainism.</p> <p>One accepted the Authorities of the Vedas and other rejected the Authorities of Vedas.</p> <p>Both of them realized the truth, and both of them were enlightened.</p> <p>If two people realize the absolute truth, then they should not contradict each other.</p> <p>Why did two people who realized the truth, and became enlightened, contradict each other?</p>	45067	45058	16	2	45058	3	Why do enlightened people contradict each other?	3	45067	<p>The Ultimate Reality is infinite. An enlightened person may not have experienced the whole of this Reality. The partial experience of the Reality leads to apparent contradictions.</p> <p>Let me give here the experience of Totapuri, the Advaita Vedanta Guru of Sri Ramakrishna. Sri Puri has had the Advaita moksha experience after 40 years of effort. He did not accept the reality of Hindu Devatas.</p> <blockquote> <p>From Sri Ramakrishna Totapuri had to learn the significance of Kali, the Great Fact of the relative world, and of maya, Her indescribable Power.</p> <p>One day, when guru and disciple were engaged in an animated discussion about Vedanta, a servant of the temple garden came there and took a coal from the sacred fire that had been lighted by the great ascetic. He wanted it to light his tobacco. Totapuri flew into a rage and was about to beat the man. Sri Ramakrishna rocked with laughter. "What a shame!" he cried. "You are explaining to me the reality of Brahman and the illusoriness of the world; yet now you have so far forgotten yourself as to be about to beat a man in a fit of passion. The power of maya is indeed inscrutable!" Totapuri was embarrassed.</p> <p>About this time Totapuri was suddenly laid up with a severe attack of dysentery. On account of this miserable illness he found it impossible to meditate. One night the pain became excruciating. He could no longer concentrate on Brahman. The body stood in the way. He became incensed with its demands. A free soul, he did not at all care for the body. So he determined to drown it in the Ganges. Thereupon he walked into the river. But, lo! He walks to the other bank." (This version of the incident is taken from the biography of Sri Ramakrishna by Swami Saradananda, one of the Master's direct disciples.) Is there not enough water in the Ganges? Standing dumbfounded on the other bank he looks back across the water. The trees, the temples, the houses, are silhouetted against the sky. Suddenly, in one dazzling moment, he sees on all sides the presence of the Divine Mother. She is in everything; She is everything. She is in the water; She is on land. She is the body; She is the mind. She is pain; She is comfort. She is knowledge; She is ignorance. She is life; She is death. She is everything that one sees, hears, or imagines. She turns "yea" into "nay", and "nay" into "yea". Without Her grace no embodied being can go beyond Her realm. Man has no free will. He is not even free to die. Yet, again, beyond the body and mind She resides in Her Transcendental, Absolute aspect. She is the Brahman that Totapuri had been worshipping all his life.</p> <p>Totapuri returned to Dakshineswar and spent the remaining hours of the night meditating on the Divine Mother. In the morning he went to the Kali temple with Sri Ramakrishna and prostrated himself before the image of the Mother. He now realized why he had spent eleven months at Dakshineswar.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Introduction, Tota Puri by Swami Nikhilananda</strong></p>
<p>Sanskrit is a very rich language and old language. One word may have multiple meaning.</p> <p>Language evolve on change time to time. Vedas were at least written around 1500bce.</p> <p><strong>So how do we know that the translation we are reading and understanding is correct. And that's how people have understood the Vedas when they were first composed</strong>.</p> <p>[Skandaswami's commantary is the oldest but he commentated on vedas at around 7th century that still more than 1700 years late]</p>	45097	45084	8	2	45084	4	How can we understand vedas?	3	45097	<blockquote> <p>Sanskrit is a very rich language and old language. One word may have multiple meaning.</p> <p>Language evolve on change time to time. Vedas were at least written around 1500bce.</p> <p>So how do we know that the translation we are reading and understanding is correct. And that's how people have understood the Vedas when they were first composed.</p> </blockquote> <p>That is why the Rishis have created four <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanga#:%7E:text=The%20Vedanga%20(Sanskrit%3A%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%99%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%97%20ved%C4%81%E1%B9%85ga,)%3A%20phonetics%2C%20phonology%2C%20pronunciation." rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vedangas</a></em>: Vyakarana, Nirukta, Shiksha, and Chandas.</p> <ul> <li>Vyakarana is Vedic grammar and linguistics.</li> <li>Nirukta is etymology of Vedic words.</li> <li>Shikha is pronunciation of Vedic words.</li> <li>Chandas is how Vedic poetic meters are constructed.</li> </ul> <p>Each Vedanga has a set of texts written by celebrated Rishis.</p> <p>Panini's <em>Ashtadhyayi</em> is a foundational treatise for understanding Vedic grammar. Yaska's <em>Nighantu</em> for understanding Nirukta. The <em>Pratishakhyas</em> for each Vedic shakha are to understand the Shiksha for each Vedic Shakha. <em>Chandas</em> and <em>Pingala</em> sutras to understand Chandas.</p> <p>On top of this, each Vedanga text was commented upon by several scholars later on. The most notable commentator of Panini's Ashtadhyayi is Patanjali. Patanjali's Bhashya is studied even till today.</p> <p>In addition to these Vedangas, there is the unbroken chain of Vedic recitation and transmission which is continuing even till today. There are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_chant#Pathas" rel="nofollow noreferrer">11 ways</a> to recite the Vedas:</p> <blockquote> <p>Eleven such ways of reciting the Vedas were designed – Samhita, Pada, Krama, Jata, Maalaa, Sikha, Rekha, Dhwaja, Danda, Rathaa, Ghana, of which Ghana is usually considered the most difficult.</p> </blockquote> <p>Pada patha is word by word recitation.</p> <p>On top of this we have the Smritis, which serve as a commentary on the Vedas:</p> <blockquote> <p>itihasa puranabhyam vedam samupabrahmhayet \| bibhetyalpashrutadvedo namayam pratirishyati \|\| - Mahabharata</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>"One should interpret the Vedas with the Puranas and Itihasas"</p> </blockquote>
<p>I am only talking about Sakta Agamas (Tantra). How many texts are there? I somewhere read the number is 64. But I am not sure. I do not have any reference also. For example, we had a clear idea of how many Vedas we have. What about Tantra? If possible, please mention the name of those texts.</p>	45173	45169	6	2	45169	7	How many Tantra (Sakta Agamas) texts are there?	3	45173	<p>Arthur Avalon mentioned in the <em>Principles of Tantra</em>(English translation of the Bengali work <em>Tantratattva</em> written by his guru Shivachandra Vidyârnava) that each <em>Krântâ</em> has it's own 64 sets of Shâktâgamas. There are 3 <em>Krântâ</em>s, which makes a total of 192 Shâktâgamas.</p> <p>For Vishnukrântâ, these 64 Shâktâgamas are :</p> <p><em>Siddheshvara Tantra, Kâlî Tantra, Kulârnava Tantra, Jnanârnava Tantra, Nîla Tanta, Phetkârinî Tantra, Devî Âgama, Uttara Tantra, Shrîkrama Tantra, Siddhayâmala Tantra, Matsyasûkta, Siddhasâra Tantra, Siddhasârasvata Tantra, Vârâhî Tantra, Yoginî Tantra, Ganeshavimarshinî Tantra, Nityâ Tantra, Shivâgama, Châmundâ Tantra, Mundamâlâ Tantra, Hamsamaheshvara Tantra, Niruttara Tantra, Kulaprakâshaka Tantra, Devîkalpa Tantra, Gândharva Tantra, Kriyâsâra Tantra, Nibandha Tantra, Svatantra Tantra, Sammohana Tantra, Tantrarâja Tantra, Lalitâ Tantra, Râdhâ Tantra, Mâlinî Tantra, Rudrayâmala Tantra, Brihatshrîkrama Tantra, Gavâksha Tantra, Sukumudinî Tantra, Vishuddheshvara Tantra, Mâlinîvijaya Tantra, Samayâchâra Tantra, Bhairavî Tantra, Yoginîhridaya Tantra, Bhairava Tantra, Sanatkumâra Tantra, Yoni Tantra, Tantrântara Tantra, Navaratneshvara Tantra, Kulachudâmani Tantra, Bhâvachudâmani Tantra, Devaprakâsha Tantra, Kâmâkhyâ Tantra, Kâmadhenu Tantra, Kumârî Tantra, Bhûtadâmara Tantra, Yâmala Tantra, Brahmayâmala Tantra, Vishvasâra Tantra, Mahâkâlasamhita, Kuloddîsha Tantra, Kulâmrita Tantra, Kubjikâ Tantra, Yantrachitâmani Tantra, Kâlîvilâsa Tantra, Mâyâ Tantra</em></p> <p>For Rathakrântâ, these 64 Shâktâgamas are :</p> <p><em>Chinmaya Tantra, Matsyasûkta, Mahishamardinî Tantra, Matrikâbheda Tantra, Hamsamaheshvara Tantra, Meru Tantra, Mahânîla Tantra, Mahânirvâna Tantra, Bhûtadâmara Tantra, Devadâmara Tantra, Vîjachintâmani Tantra, Ekajatâ Tantra, Vâsudevarahasya, Brihadgautamîya Tantra, Varnoddhriti Tantra, Chhâyânîla Tantra, Brihadyonî Tantra, Brahmajnana Tantra, Garuda Tantra, Varnavilâsâ Tantra, Bâlâvilasa Tantra, Purascharanachandrika, Purascharanollâsa, Panchadashî Tantra, Pichchhillâ Tantra, Prapanchasârâ Tantra, Parameshvara Tantra, Navaratneshvara Tantra, Nâradîya Tantra, Nâgârjuna Tantra, Yogasâra Tantra, Dakshinâmûrtî Tantra, Yogasvarodaya Tantra, Yakshinî Tantra, Svarodaya Tantra, Jnânabhairava Tantra, Âkâshabhairava Tantra, Râjarâjeshvari Tantra, Revatî Tantra, Sârasa Tantra, Indrajâla Tantra, Krikalasadîpikâ, Kankâlamâlinî Tantra, Kâlottama Tantra, Yakshadâmara Tantra, Sarasvatî Tantra, Saradâ Tantra, Shaktisangama Tantra, Shaktikâgamasarvasya, Sammohanî Tantra, Âchârasâra Tantra, Chînâchâra Tantra, Shadâmnâya Tantra, Karâlabhairava Tantra, Shodha Tantra, Mahâlakshmî Tantra, Kaivalya Tantra, Kulasadbhâva Tantra, Siddhitâdhârî Tantra, Kritisâra Tantra, Kâlabhairava Tantra, Uddâmaresha Tantra, Mahâkâlasamhita, Bhûtabhairava Tantra</em></p> <p>For Ashvakrântâ, these 64 Shâktâgamas are:</p> <p><em>Bhûtasuddhi Tantra, Guptadikshâ Tantra, Brihatsâra Tantra, Tattvassâra Tantra, Varnasâra Tantra, Kriyâsâra Tantra, Gupta Tantra, Guptasâra Tantra, Brihattodala Tantra, Brihannirvâna Tantra, Brihadkankâlamâlinî Tantra, Siddha Tantra, Kalâ Tantra, Shiva Tantra, Sârâtsâra Tantra, Gaurî Tantra, Yoga Tantra, Dharmaka Tantra, Tattvachintamani Tantra, Bindu Tantra, Mahâyoginî Tantra, Brihadyoginî Tantra, Shivârchanâ Tantra, Shabara Tantra, Shûlinî Tantra, Mahâmâlinî Tantra, Moksha Tantra, Brihanmâlinî Tantra, Mahâmoksha Tantra, Brihanmoksha Tantra, Gopî Tantra, Bhûtalipi Tantra, Kâminî Tantra, Mohinî Tantra, Mohana Tantra, Samîrana Tantra, Kâmakeshava Tantra, Mahâvîra Tantra, Chudâmanî Tantra, Gurvâchanî Tantra, Gopîra Tantra, Tikshna Tantra, Mangalâ Tantra, Kâmaratna Tantra, Gopalîlâmrita Tantra, Brahmânanda Tantra, Chîna Tantra, Mahâniruttara Tantra, Bhûteshvara Tantra, Gâyatrî Tantra, Vishuddheshvara Tantra, Yogârnava Tantra, Bherundâ Tantra, Mantrachintâmani Tantra, Yantrachudâmani Tantra, Viddyullatâ Tantra, Bhuvaneshvarî Tantra, Lîlâvatî Tantra, Brihadchîna Tantra, Kuranja Tantra, Jayarâdhâmâdhava Tantra, Ujjashâka Tantra, Dhûmâvatî Tantra, Shivâ Tantra</em></p> <p>Some texts don't appear in the list but are considered higly authorative. These are <em>Brihannîla Tantra, Todala Tantra, Varadâ Tantra, Tripurâ Tantra, Rasollâsa Tantra, Dattâtreya Tantra, Yogasârârnava Tantra, Hamsa Tantra, Sarvollâsa Tantra, Guptasâdhana Tantra, Virabhadra Tantra, Advaita Tantra, Anûttama Tantra, Rahasya Tantra, Yogeshvara Tantra, Guru Tantra, Latâtantra, Urdhdâmnâya Tantra, Nirvâna Tantra, Âgamasarvasya, Kâlîkulasarvasya, Shyamârahasya, Nigamakalpadruma, Annadâkalpa, Kaulavali, Mahâchînâcharakrama, Nirvânakramadîpikâ, Kaulikârchanadîpikâ</em></p> <p>The <em>Vârâhî Tantra</em> also cites the following texts as Shâktâgamas :</p> <p><em>Nîlapatâkâ Tantra, Vâmakeshvara Tantra, Mritunjaya Tantra, Yogârnava Tantra, Kâmeshvarî Tantra, Haragaurî Tantra, Kâtyayanî Tantra, Pratyangirâ Tantra, Tripurârnava Tantra, Mridânî Tantra, Nârâyani Tantra</em></p> <p>The 6 <em>damara</em> texts(<em>Yogadâmara, Shivadâmara, Durgâdâmara, Sârasvatadâmara, Gandharvadâmara, Brahmadâmara</em>) & 6 <em>yâmala</em> texts(<em>Âdiyâmala, Brahmayâmala, Vishnuyâmala, Rudrayâmala, Ganeshayâmala, Adityayâmala</em>) have also been cited by the <em>Vârâhî Tantra</em>. Outside these 6 <em>yâmala</em>s, there also exists <em>Umâyâmala, Skandayâmala</em> & <em>Jayadrathayâmala</em>.</p> <p>Some <em>nibandha</em>s like <em>Shrîvidyârnava Tantra</em> of Vidyâranya, <em>Shâradâtilaka Tantra</em> of Lakshmana Deshikendra along with it's various commentaries, <em>Shâktânandataranginî</em> & <em>Târârahasya</em> of Brahmânanda Girî, <em>Mantramahodadhi</em> of Mahîdhara, <em>Brihat Tantrasâra</em> of Krishnânanda Âgamavâgishâ, <em>Târâbhaktisudhârnava, Târinîkrama, Mahâvidya Prakarana, Târâparicharyâ</em> of Narasimha Thakura, <em>Tripurasundarî Tantra, Traipurasiddhântaprakarana</em> of Amritânandanâtha, <em>Traipurasârasamuchchaya</em> of Nâgabhatta, <em>Parashurâma Kalpasûtra</em> along with the <em>Saubhagyashubhodaya</em> commentary by Râmeshvara, <em>Kâlikâbhaktirasâyana, Kaulagajamardana, Tantrasiddhântakaumudî, Dakshinâchâradîpikâ, Mantrachandrikâ, Yantrachandrikâ</em> of Kâshînatha Bhatta alongside the works of Râghavânanda, Virûpâksha, Govindabhatta like <em>Râmârchanachandrikâ, Tripurâsârasamuchchaya, Svachchhandasamgrahasârasamuchchaya, Bhuvaneshvarîpârijâta, Mantramuktâvalî, Mantratantraprakâsha, Somabhujangâvalî</em> are worth mentionable in this regard.</p> <p>Although the Vaishnava Âgama canon includes Panchâratra texts, centain Tântrika Vaishnava texts which don't fall under the Panchâratra list are revered by Shâktas of Bengal. These are the <em>Gautamiya Tantra</em> & <em>Krishnayâmala Tantra</em>. Besides Âgamavâgishâ also quoted from Vaishnava Tântrika nibandhas like <em>Râmârchanachandrikâ, Krishnârchanachandrika</em> & <em>Govindavrindâvana</em>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10095.htm" rel="noreferrer">Rigveda 10.95.15</a>, translated by Ralph T Griffith, is as follows.</p> <blockquote> <p>Nay, do not die, Pururavas, nor vanish: let not the evil-omened wolves devour thee. With women there can be no lasting friendship: hearts of hyenas are the hearts of women.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>What is the proper translation of this verse? Multiple translations/interpretations also can be provided if they exist</strong>.</p>	45336	45258	4	2	45258	2	What is the proper translation of Rig Veda 10.95.15?	4	45336	<p>No the translation is absolutely fine. We need to see the context here. According to legend, Pururava and Urvashi lived together and Urvasi leaves him one day. Pururva goes back to her and asks her to come back. She refuses and then Pururva threatens her that he will die and never return, hence she speaks these words. By this, we can conclude that these verses don't have any philosophical/prescriptive but only descriptive usage as part of a Legendary Story. Also hyenas are noted in the Vedas as symbol of excellent parents. Indra is said to be carrying his brood as thousand hyenas in his mouth, like the hyena carries its cub.</p> <blockquote> <p>Pururava says " How indignant wife, with mind (relenting), stay awhiie, let us now interchange discourse. These, our secret thoughts, while unspoken, did not yield us happiness even at the last day " (RV 10.95.1)</p> <p>Urvasi says " What can we accomplish through such discourse? I have passed away from you like the first of the dawns. Return Pururava, to your dwelling; I arn as hard to catch as the wind."(RV 10.95.2)</p> <p>You have been born thus to protect the earth; you have deposited this vigour in me: knowing (the future) I have instructed you (what to do) every day; you have not listened to me;why do you now address me, neglectful (of my instruction)? (RV 10.95.11)</p> <p>Pururava says " When shall a son (born of you) claim me as a father, and, crying, shed a tear on recognizing (me)? What son shall sever husband and wife who are of one mind, now that the fire shines upon your husband's parents? " (RV 10.95.12)</p> <p>Urvasi says " Let me reply. (Your son) will shed tears, crying out and calling aloud when the expected auspicious time arrives; I will send you that (child) which is yours in me, depart to your house, your can not, simpleton, detain me." (RV 10.95.13)</p> <p>Pururava says "(Your husband) who sports with you may now depart, never to return, (depart) to proceed to a distant region. Either let him sleep upon the lap of Nirrti, or let the swift-moving wolves devour him." (RV 10.95.14)</p> <p>Urvasi says " Die not, Pururava, fall not, let not the hideous wolves devour you. Female friendships do not exist, are the hearts of jackals." (RV 10.95.15)</p> </blockquote> <p>This Legendary story is also mentioned in Satapatha Brahmana which can be refered here <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/satapatha-brahmana-english/d/doc63439.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1</a>.</p>
<p>Are fire cracks really a part of diwali celebration? We're crakers always used in ancient times or they are just something that we cameup in recent times?</p> <p>And is there any scriptural reference to this practice?</p>	45284	45270	5	2	45270	2	Are fire cracks really a part of diwali celebration?	3	45284	<blockquote> <p>Are fire cracks really a part of diwali celebration?<br></p> </blockquote> <h2><strong>Short Answer: NO</strong><br></h2> <hr /> <p>There's no scriptural injunction in any way whatsoever which prescribe for burning crackers on the auspicious day of <em>Diwali</em> or <em>Deepavali</em>. Also, contrary to the popular belief that "Diwali is celebrated only because <em>Shri Rama</em> returned back to <em>Ayodhaya</em> after his <em>vanavasa</em>, there are <a href="https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Vaidik_Sanatan_Hindutva/a2BgDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%20%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%80&pg=PT136&printsec=frontcover" rel="nofollow noreferrer">several</a> <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/408/what-is-the-significance-of-the-festival-diwali-why-is-it-celebrated">other</a> <a href="https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_New_Year_s_Holidays_Worl/ujTfCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=vamana%20avatar%20diwali&pg=PA112&printsec=frontcover" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reasons</a> in different parts of India, another popular one being, the "Emergence of <em>Bhagawati Lakshmi</em> from <em>Samundra Manthan</em> and thus subsequent tradition of extolling and worshipping Goddess <em>Mahalakshmi</em> on the night of <em>Diwali.</em></p> <p>Now, there are several ways to look at this phenomenon of cracker burning:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Historical Reasoning:</strong> <br> - Although invention and use of crackers predates the modern civilization, starting at around <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firecracker#History" rel="nofollow noreferrer">200 BCE</a> itself from China. It'll however be plausible to make a case that burning cracker as a religious or cultural practice wasn't prevelant at all.<br></li> </ul> <p>As discussed in <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/research/a-crackling-history-of-fireworks-in-india-4890178/#:%7E:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20use%20of%20fireworks%20in,1900%2C%E2%80%9D%20published%20in%201950." rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a> article:</p> <blockquote> <p>“The use of fireworks in the celebration of Diwali, which is so common in India now, must have come into existence after about 1400 AD, when gunpowder came to be used in Indian warfare,” stated late historian P K Gode in his account, “History of Fireworks in India between 1400 and 1900,” published in 1950. <br> <br></p> </blockquote> <ul> <li><p><strong>Cultural Reasoning:</strong><br> - The present phenomenon of burning crackers, can also be understood through cultural (sociological & anthropological) lenses. One may (for the sake of arguement) put forward the view that burning crackers being "considered" as a religiously or culturally indispensable practices is similar to the "canonical-presumed" worship of <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/5300/which-hindu-texts-contains-the-story-of-santoshi-mata-and-about-her-other-legend"><em>Santoshi Mata</em></a>, <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/829/what-is-the-basis-for-worshipping-sai-baba-are-there-are-references-to-him-in-t"><em>Sai</em></a> <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/3445/is-sai-baba-of-shirdi-really-a-god"><em>Baba</em></a>, et al., all of which, by any religious or theological standards, cannot be considered as <em>Vedic</em> or <em>Puranic</em> Divinities, despite being extolled and worshipped via the <em>Vedic</em> & <em>Puranic</em> practices. Here, it can be argued that the <em>Brahman</em> i.e, the Supreme Reality, it being everything, and thus can be worshipped in any form. What matter is the devotion, faith and beliefs of the devotee, which is what makes these deities "popular - Gods" among the masses, despite no religious basis or standard theologicallly verifiable scriptural stories, that might affirm their divinities. Thus, the "burning crackers" might be considered in a sociological setting as a typical example of negative "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation#:%7E:text=Cultural%20appropriation%20is%20the%20adoption,appropriate%20from%20disadvantaged%20minority%20cultures." rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cultural Appropriation</a>" or Cultural adoption of foreign customs or practices. <br> <br></p> </li> <li><p><strong>Religious Reasoning:</strong><br> -</p> </li> </ul> <p>The <em>Rig-Veda</em> mentions about environment on several occasions. <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01185.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Verses</a> from the <em>Rig-Veda</em> states that</p> <blockquote> <p>“the sky is like father, the earth like mother and the space as their son. The universe consisting of the three is like a family and any kind of damage done to any one of the three throws the universe out of balance” <br></p> </blockquote> <p>Another verse from <em>Rig-Veda</em> says</p> <blockquote> <p>“Thousands and Hundreds of years if you want to enjoy the fruits and happiness of life, then take up systematic planting of trees” <br></p> </blockquote> <p>The <em>Atharva Veda</em> also mentions about the importance of air, water and green plants essential for human existence. <em>Atharvaveda</em> has also warned not to dirty and add toxic substances into water bodies as it may lead to spread of diseases <em>“he who dirties or spoils ponds, lakes, rivers, etc., or cause smell near residential areas is liable to chastisement”</em>. <br> Although there <strong>might</strong> not have been as such no concept of the word “Pollution” those days but it was referred in terms of “poisoning” of environment. So for translation sake, it may be called pollution too. <br></p> <p>The A.V. 18.17 (<em>Atharva Veda</em>) recalls</p> <blockquote> <p>that three things cover the universe the air, water and the plants and they are essential for all lives on earth to exist. “Plants and herbs destroy poisons (pollutants)” (A.V. 8.7.10); “Purity of atmosphere checks poisoning (pollution)” (<a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/wyv/wyvbk08.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">A.V. 8.2.25</a>). Some herbs purify the air. The fragrance of guru (<em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiphora_wightii" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Commiphora mukul</a></em>) purifies the air and cure diseases (A.V. 19.38.1)</p> </blockquote> <p>Also, <em>Atharva Veda</em> instructs <em>'Apo Vata Ashadhayah'</em> means air and water are sacred and like natural medicines and so it is very important to keep clean and pure.</p> <br> <p>The <em>Yajurveda</em> too mentions about plants and animals, the ill effects of cutting of trees; and the poisoning of the atmosphere; <br></p> <blockquote> <p>“No persons should kill animals helpful to all” (<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=yajurveda%2013.37&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwja19zK177vAhX97HMBHT5FC9cQ_AUoAXoECAEQCw&biw=1536&bih=722" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Y.V. 13.37</a>). “O King you should never kill animals like bullocks useful in agriculture or like cows which gives us milk and all other helpful animals and must punish those who kill or do harm to such animals” (Y.V. 13.49). The oceans are treasure of wealth protect them” (<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=yajurveda%2038.22&biw=1536&bih=722&tbm=bks&ei=d9FVYNHtNaC-3LUP8seA8A8&oq=yajurveda%2038.22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2957.4322.0.4585.5.5.0.0.0.0.270.793.2-3.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.0.0....0.09df5k8nKZs" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Y.V. 38.22</a>); “Do not poison (pollute) water and do not harm or cut the trees (Y.V. 6.33); “Do not disturb the sky and do not poison the atmosphere” (Y.V. 5.43).</p> </blockquote> <p>NOW, it is not a hidden, unobservable or unverifiable scientific & empirical evidence based fact that burning crackers in any way, causes the <a href="https://www.medicoverhospitals.in/how-firecrackers-affects-health/#:%7E:text=To%20produce%20colors%20when%20crackers,crackers%20firing%20is%20at%20peak." rel="nofollow noreferrer">pollution</a> of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844019358621" rel="nofollow noreferrer">air</a>, water, land, sound, etc. Not only this, it also negatively impacts the <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/a-festival-where-fun-fires-fear/articleshow/61083257.cms" rel="nofollow noreferrer">pets</a> and other animals because of their heightened and <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/929122/fireworks-evidence-submission-rspca.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sensitive</a> sensory systems which are more <a href="https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/111120/pets-can-suffer-nervous-breakdown-due-to-lound-sounds-of-firecrackers.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">susceptible</a> to environmental disturbances of any kind. And clearly, any deliberate harm to any <em>jeeva</em> or our envirnonment, is clearly not recommended in the <em>Vedic</em> literature, as discussed. <br></p> <p>Furthermore, from the above detailed discussion, some light is thrown on the awareness of our ancient seers about the environment, and its constituents. It is clear that the Vedic vision to live in harmony with environment was not merely physical but was far wider and much comprehensive. The <em>Vedic</em> people desired to live a life of hundred years and this wish can be fulfilled only when environment will be unpolluted, clean and peaceful.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>And Thus, using our <em>Indriya Prajñā</em> & <em>Boudhika Prajñā</em> and the sacred <em>Ritambara Prajñā</em> acquired from the <em>Vedas</em> vis-a-vis the Historial, Cultural and Religious perspectives as discussed above, one may be able to arrive at an unequivocal conculsion that, the Vedic and Puranic culture and injunctions does not advocate for any kind of fire crackers for Diwali or any other celebration. It's is purely a culturally appropriated and custom-hybridized practice, developed over the course of time in this age of <em>Kaliyuga</em>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Manu Smriti 11.65 - 11.66</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>11.65. Neglecting to kindle the sacred fires, theft, non-payment of (the three) debts, studying bad books, and practising (the arts of) dancing and singing,</p> <p>11.66. <strong>Stealing</strong> grain, base metals, or cattle, intercourse with women who drink spirituous liquor, <strong>slaying</strong> women, Sudras, Vaisyas, or Kshatriyas, and atheism, <strong>(are all) minor offences</strong>, <em><strong>causing loss of caste (Upapataka)</strong></em>.</p> </blockquote> <p>I need elaboration on this.</p> <ol> <li><p>Why slaying a woman must be considered "just a minor offense" (<em>upapataka</em>) while killing a brahmin (ब्रह्म-हत्या) is a despicable unforgivable offense - <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/2668"><em>mahapataka</em></a>?</p> </li> <li><p>Why shouldn't it not explicitly mention that "slaying men along with women" is a <em>Upapataka</em>?</p> </li> <li><p>Why just put women as a Noun specifically, while ALSO "supposedly" goes on to club men from other <em>varnas</em> - other castes (<em>sudras, Kshatriyas and vaishyas</em>) ?</p> </li> <li><p>Also, why must any other "personal vice activities" (drinking, intercourse, thief/robbery), be equated on a par level with a "social evil" like Murder ? How can and why Must, killing anyone (of any <em>varna</em>) by anyone (of any <em>varna</em> ), should be taken in different contexts for different people (belonging to different <em>varna</em> - caste)?</p> </li> </ol> <p>Kindly Note: this is not opinion based as it is asking for the logic of something mention in dharmashastras and the position of women in them. The answer itself can be derived from a thorough reading of the Dharmashastras</p> <hr /> <p><strong>P. S.</strong></p> <p>I'm not looking for cyclic or non empirical reasoning answers and arguments like:</p> <ul> <li>it also says <em>"Yatra Naryastu Pujyante... " (.. यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते )</em>, so why just circling these quotes only out of context?</li> <li>Or, some people of certain caste are "thought" to be truthful always, while others of another caste, might mostly be untruthful.</li> <li>it is supposed to be of "divine" origin from sky and thus utterly binding.</li> <li>other verses also say to discard <em>"wheat from the chaff"</em></li> <li>et al.</li> </ul> <hr /> <p>Answers to the question must try to adhere to the underlying presumed inequality, as to why killing anyone must be a minor offense, that too in a "dharmic" law book.?</p> <p><sup>[For Varna wise punishment a separate discussion maybe made.]</sup></p>	45424	45280	2	2	45280	8	Why killing someone, stealing and drinking, all are equated on a same level of offense?	3	45424	<p><strong>Summary:</strong> <sup> (<em><strong>Read conclusion</strong> below for a summarised compact understanding, since answer is long</em>.) </sup></p> <p>Upapātaka doesn’t mean minor sin but general sin. There’s no hierarchy of sins per say except the 5 major ones and killing of women (or anyone) is in no way inferior. <em>There is <strong>no differentiation</strong> between the killing of Men and women both have been accorded an equal status</em> but yet an exception has been made in the case of fertile women. <strong>The killing of a fertile woman is categorised as the gravest of grave i.e. <em>Mahāpātaka</em></strong>. Read on (<strong>mainly point 1 and 2</strong>) to find out the logic and description by our beautifully drafted Dharmaśāstras.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>Detailed</strong></p> <h2>Introduction</h2> <p>Firstly let us understand that the killing of a woman has always been considered among the gravest of sins with special emphasis laid on the fact of them being women, irrespective of caste. This can be evidenced from the following words by Bharata while preventing Shatrughna from harming Mantharā in the Rāmāyaṇa:</p> <blockquote> <p>Seeing that enraged Shatrughna, Bharata said: "<strong>Among all beings women are not to be killed</strong>. Hence she is to be pardoned." <a href="https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/ayodhya/sarga78/ayodhya_78_frame.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">VR 2.78.21</a></p> </blockquote> <hr /> <h2>1. Reason for Deriding the Killing of Women?</h2> <p>The Vasiṣṭha Dharmaśāstra 20.36 while explaining the concept of Ātreyī (discussed below) gives us a hint for this special treatment towards women:</p> <blockquote> <p>'For if (the husband) approaches her at that (time), he will have offspring.'</p> </blockquote> <p>Elaborating based on the above verse- Among the two genders, the one which which is capable of creating and sustaining new life form in her own body (<strong>child bearing</strong>) and thereby facilitating other souls to take birth, bear fruits of karma and realise self/ God (the basic purpose of life) is a woman. If one kills a woman, it’s like saying one potential body through which a soul could find its way on earth has been destroyed.</p> <p>On the other hand, a man’s job relating to the reproduction aspect (not talking about taking care of his wife etc) is restricted to providing his seed (<strong>procreation only</strong>) and unlike a woman who sustains for 9 months, a man is required only at the time of conception. A seed may thus be obtained from any respectable man, the practice of Niyoga <strong>somewhat</strong> alluding to this fact.</p> <p>Even <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201461.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Manu 9.96</a> acknowledges the said difference between roles of man and woman:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Women were created for the purpose of child-bearing</strong>, and <em>men for the purpose of procreation</em>. hence it is that Religious Rites have been ordained in the Veda as common between the man and his wife.</p> </blockquote> <p>However it is pertinent to note that only a woman who is in her prime is able gestate a new life in her womb.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>Explaining the concept of Ātreyī</strong><br> Since only a woman in prime is able to create a new life form, the special treatment is awarded to her. Such a woman is called an Ātreyī. The Vasiṣṭha Dharmaśāstra 20.35-36 says:</p> <blockquote> <p>They declare that <em>she who has bathed after temporary uncleanness is an Ātreyī</em>. 'For if (the husband) approaches her at that (time), he will have offspring.'</p> </blockquote> <p>Other Dharmaśāstras like Āpastamba also consider Ātreyī in this context and not an Atri gotriṇī brāhmaṇī, as maybe be misunderstood.</p> <p>The <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarakosha" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Amarakośa</a> (Manushya Varga Shloka 568: स्त्रीधर्मिण्यवि<strong>रात्रेयी</strong> मलिनी पुष्पवत्यपि) too mentions ‘Ātreyī’ as a synonym for a woman in her prime.</p> <hr /> <p>The importance of a woman in her prime can also be evidenced from the Dharmaśāstras (the husband/ father is wasting the Rajas every month instead of facilitating a new soul):</p> <blockquote> <p>He who does not give away a marriageable daughter within three years of her puberty doubtlessly contracts a guilt equal to that of killing an embryo. He who does not approach, during three years, a wife who is marriageable, incurs, without doubt, a guilt equal to that of killing an embryo<br>Bodhāyana 4.1.12 and 4.1.17</p> </blockquote> <p><em>Women who’ve crossed their prime, being unable to gestate a new life form should be considered at par with men.</em> It would thus be illogical to accord them a special treatment. Keeping this exact view (<strong>women in prime of extreme importance and those who’ve crossed it as being equivalent to men</strong>) in mind, the Dharmaśāstras have been made.</p> <hr /> <h2>2. Categorisation of the sin by Dharmaśāstras</h2> <p>For the abovementioned reason, the Dharmaśāstras generally divide the sin of killing a woman into two categories:</p> <ol> <li>Mahāpātaka - The Killing of an embryo (or even pregnant woman) (भ्रूणहत्या) and an Ātreyī (woman in her prime), irrespective of Varna; as well as the killing of a Brāhmaṇī.</li> <li>Upa-Pataka - the killing of a woman not being a Brāhmaṇī or not being either pregnant or in her prime. The atonement in this case would be as per their respective Varnas.</li> </ol> <h3>A. Mahāpātaka</h3> <p>a) The view of the Dharmaśastras regards the killing of her woman in her prime being a Mahāpātaka is as follows:</p> <blockquote> <p>He who destroys an embryo or <strong>a woman in her courses</strong> should perform the penance laid down for the Brāhmaṇa-killer.<br>-Yājñavalkya 3.251</p> <p>Likewise if he has <em>killed a female who had bathed after temporary uncleanness</em>.<br>-Gautama 22.12</p> <p>(The penance for killing) a woman who has bathed after temporary uncleanness (is) the <strong>same (as that) for (the murder of) a Brāhmaṇa</strong>.<br>-Bodhāyana 2.1.1.12</p> <p>Or a woman during her courses.<br>-Āpastamba 1.9.24.9</p> </blockquote> <p>b) The view as regards the killing of a Brāhmaṇī (not only a male Brahmin) being a Mahāpātaka is as follows: <br> The Mitākṣarā commentary on the Yājñavalkya Smṛti explains:</p> <blockquote> <p>...<strong>लिङ्गवचनयोरविवक्षितत्वा</strong>द् ब्राह्मणजातेः <strong>स्त्रीपुंसयो</strong>रविशेषात्तदतिक्रमनिमित्तप्रायश्चित्तविधेः ब्रह्महा द्वादशाब्दानि...</p> <p><strong>Owing to the universality of Gender</strong> and number (singular plural), 12 years has been prescribed for the killing or attempting to <strong>kill a Brahmin man as well as a woman</strong>, as man and woman are indistinguishable.</p> </blockquote> <p>With this we can understand that due to the universality of gender, the words ‘Brahmin man and woman’ do not find explicit mention but saying Brahmin is sufficient enough. That is to say the Shastras don’t differentiate between a man and woman in most cases and uses one word eg. Brahmin; unless highlighting gender specific duties.</p> <p>Yet, since a commentator may use his own intellect to interpret the Shastra (may not be what is actually intended) and thus if there remains a doubt, we can also understand that the Mahāpātaka applies equally to the killing of a Brāhmaṇī <em>from an authentic source i.e. the verses of the Dharmaśāstras</em> themselves (quoted in the Upapātaka Section of this answer), which <strong>explicitly say the atonement for killing of women are to be as per their respective Varnas.</strong> Note: I’ve not quoted the Brahmin Verse but it comes just before the Kshatriya part. And then the verse which explicitly state that women are the same. Hence Brahmahatya applies for a man and woman equally.</p> <h3>B. Upapātaka</h3> <p>The killing of a non-Brahmin is an Upapātaka as rightly quoted in the question. The same is applicable to non-Brahmin women (not in their prime) and men. The atonement for killing reduces with Varna. (I’m quoting this only since the same is applicable to women too but only from Āpastamba). This barring the gifting of cows is as follows:</p> <blockquote> <p>(For killing) a Kṣatriya (he shall keep the normal vow of continence) during nine years; (For killing) a Vaiśya during three (years), (For killing) a Śūdra during one year.<br>Āpastamba 1.9.24</p> </blockquote> <p>Now the Dharmaśāstras unequivocally state in clear explicit words that the same penance is applicable for killing women as is applicable for the men of the same Varnas:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>स्त्रीषु चैतेषामेवम्</strong> - And for women the same as these above (i.e. in the order of Varna)<br>-Āpastamba 1.9.24.5</p> <p><strong>Likewise for killing a woman</strong>.<br>-Bodhāyana 2.1.1.11</p> <p>And the same (rule applies) if a female (has been killed) who was not in the condition <strong>(i.e. not in her prime (Ātreyī))</strong>.<br>Gautama 22.17</p> </blockquote> <p>Even Manu and Yājñavalkya do not prescribe a separate explicit atonement for killing a woman only. Due to universality of gender, It’s as per their Varna only.</p> <p><em>From the above it will be clear that killing a woman (not in her prime) will be as per Varna and there is thus no differentiation between killing a man and woman of the same Varna</em> <strong>On the contrary the killing of women</strong> who are <em>capable of becoming mothers</em> has been carved out from general law and been given the status of the most <strong>heinous of sins i.e. a Mahāpātaka.</strong></p> <hr /> <h2>3. Why does Manu mention ‘Women’ separately and confuse?</h2> <p>If such is the case as above even as per Manu, then why do Manu and Yājñavalkya mention ‘Women’ separately and confuse?</p> <p>This is peculiar to only Manu and Yājñvalkya Smriti. See we have to understand that Manu (and since Yājñvalkya is almost copy of Manu) is greatly tampered with/ interpolated. Yet I will comment on this aspect.</p> <p>The words ‘killing women’ have been mentioned as an Upapātaka because they don’t refer to women in general (the killing of whom is as per their Varna). <strong>They refer to adulterous women</strong> (again not in her prime). This is evident because Manu and Yājñavalkya (and Gautama) prescribe a different atonement in case of an adulterous woman. This ‘women’ which comes is a reference to such women and a glance over the Mitākṣarā commentary can implicitly subtly hint at this aspect. Refer <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc202025.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Manu 11.138</a> and the equivalent being Yājñavalkya 3.268 and 3.269.</p> <p>This is also peculiar only to the most interpolated above Dharmaśāstras and none of the other Smritis. Then again Āpastamba and Bodhāyana stand as Kalpa Sutras appended to the Shruti whereas Manu is a Smriti text. Hence this can be ignored as interpolated and basic gist is</p> <ul> <li>killing woman in her prime = Mahāpātaka,</li> <li>killing woman crossed her prime= killing of a man = Upapātaka.</li> </ul> <hr /> <h2>4. Speaking (briefly) about Upapātakas and Alcohol being Mahāpātaka**<br></h2> <p><sup> (This ideally entails a separate question but will try to keep the answer woman-centric avoiding other aspects like why Brahmins etc.) </sup> <br> <strong>Upapātaka</strong><br> <strong>Q)</strong> Does it mean killing an infertile woman is a minor sin? —> <strong>NO!</strong></p> <p><strong>A)</strong> Upapātaka- just because it’s termed so doesn’t mean it’s not a sin. It doesn’t give one the licence to kill. It’s a grave sin (not minor as is understood) for which one must do penance or face punishment. However one can think of Upapātaka as a general law where everything is bad, thus many sins are listed. It must not be understood as being inferior in any hierarchy. However over and above the general <strong>equal</strong> law <em>there are 5 such acts (and other equivelent acts like killing a woman in her prime)</em> which are the gravest of grave and supposedly way more sinful over and above the general law as they may interfere with the divine way of the world. Eg. We’ve seen killing a fertile woman is a Mahāpātaka owing to <em>interference in divine action</em> of potential birth of new life. Similarly Brahmins too interfere with the divine purpose (not getting into it here)</p> <p><strong>Q)</strong> Since there is no hierarchy of sins, except Mahāpātaka, couldn’t alcohol too be classified among the Upapātaka?</p> <p><strong>A)</strong> Alcohol has been carved out from the sin list as a special sin. We know that among the <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/19613/20129">5 Mahāpātaka</a>, one who even associates with those who are Mahāpātakis, too are considered so. Because being in their company, they’re likely to perform similar acts (more sins). Similarly alcohol may facilitate committing more grievous sins. When one is in an inebriated state, a person who doesn’t have control over himself can indulge into more Upapātakas and Mahāpātakas. We’ve seen today a majority of crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol, etc. Prevention is better than cure. Further under the influence of alcohol one can’t achieve his divine purpose due to inhibition of mental ability. Hence drinking Alcohol is rightly considered as a Mahāpātaka. No reason to leave it in the general law.</p> <p>That means killing a woman (crossed fertility and people in general) is sinful and is in no way inferior and it is understandable why the special law has been carved for fertile women. Alcohol may facilitate some action like that and hence a Mahāpātaka.</p> <hr /> <h2>Conclusion</h2> <p>Based on the above we can say there is no differentiation between killing a man and a woman. On the contrary killing women in their prime has been considered a graver sin than killing an equivalent man or another woman as it interferes with the divine purpose of potentially bringing new life to earth. So to summarise, your answers corresponding to each of the points in the question are:-</p> <ol> <li>Only killing a <strong>non-Brahmin woman</strong> who has <em>crossed her prime</em> is considered an Upapātaka, a sin equivalent to killing any man of the same Varna. <strong>However for killing either a Brāhmaṇī or women capable of reproducing (irrespective of Varna) it’s a Mahāpātaka i.e. special emphasis.</strong></li> <li>The slaying of women and men is considered equal Varna-wise and the <strong>explicit mention of slaying men and women being Upapātaka</strong> in Manu doesn’t come <strong>because of universality of gender.</strong> (Mitakshara commentary)</li> <li>The mention of women separately occurs only in interpolated Dharmaśāstras viz. Manu and Yājñavalkya to refer to an adulterous woman, because alongwith Gautama they prescribe a separate atonement for the Upapātaka of such an adulterous woman (not in her prime)</li> <li><strong>Upapātaka is</strong> not to be understood has minor sin but <strong>general law</strong>. However certain acts interfering with divine involvement like killing <strong>women in their prime</strong> have been accorded a special status over and above the general equal law. Hence killing a woman is not minor , but sinful indeed. Yet repeating, killing of a woman having her divine purpose (fertile), is an <strong>out of proportion sin.</strong></li> </ol> <hr /> <p><sup> Notes: 1. I’ve tried to stick to Yajnavalkya and avoid Manu, since he and Yajnavalkya are roughly a copy paste version of each other and Ikshvaku has already explained Manu in his answer. <br>2. Baudhayana Dharmasutra Praśna 2, Adhyāya 1, Kaṇḍikā 1.<br>3. Apastamba Dharmasutra Praśna 1, Paṭala 9, Khaṇḍa 24 </sup></p>
<p>Moksha is the main goal of human life, people who do good karma attain Moksha.</p> <p>Is it true that if supreme lord kills someone then she/he will attain Moksha?</p> <hr /> <p><sup>The <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/45291/22556">story of Pūtanā</a> is an example </sup></p>	45313	45312	7	2	45312	11	Is it true that if supreme lord kills someone then she/he will attain Moksha?	3	45313	<p>Yes. Anyone killed by Lord gets Moksha. Lord awards Moksha to even people who hate and reject him. I will give few examples of people who got liberated from Bhagavatam.</p> <blockquote> <p>These two associates of Lord Viṣṇu — Jaya and Vijaya — maintained a feeling of enmity for a very long time. <strong>Because of always thinking of Kṛṣṇa in this way, they regained the shelter of the Lord</strong>, having returned home, back to Godhead.(SB 7.1.14)</p> <p>My dear Prahlāda, O most pure, O great saintly person, <strong>your father has been purified, along with twenty-one forefathers in your family</strong>. Because you were born in this family, the entire dynasty has been purified.(SB 7.10.18)</p> <p>An effulgent light rose from Śiśupāla’s body and, as everyone watched, entered Lord Kṛṣṇa just like a meteor falling from the sky to the earth.<strong>Obsessed with hatred of Lord Kṛṣṇa throughout three lifetimes, Śiśupāla attained the Lord’s transcendental nature</strong>. Indeed, one’s consciousness determines one’s future birth.(SB 10.74.44-45)</p> </blockquote> <p>Narada Muni explains the reason and purpose to reciprocate love with Lord and reach him.</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>By enmity or by devotional service, by fear, by affection or by lusty desire — by all of these or any one of them — if a conditioned soul somehow or other concentrates his mind upon the Lord, the result is the same, for the Lord, because of His blissful position, is never affected by enmity or friendship</strong>.(SB 7.1.26)</p> <p>Many, many persons <strong>have attained liberation simply by thinking of Kṛṣṇa with great attention</strong> and giving up sinful activities. This great attention may be due to lusty desires, inimical feelings, fear, affection or devotional service. I shall now explain how <strong>one receives Kṛṣṇa’s mercy simply by concentrating one’s mind upon Him. My dear King Yudhiṣṭhira, the gopīs by their lusty desires, Kaṁsa by his fear, Śiśupāla and other kings by envy, the Yadus by their familial relationship with Kṛṣṇa, you Pāṇḍavas by your great affection for Kṛṣṇa, and we, the general devotees, by our devotional service, have obtained the mercy of Kṛṣṇa. Somehow or other, one must consider the form of Kṛṣṇa very seriously.</strong> <strong>Then, by one of the five different processes mentioned above, one can return home, back to Godhead.</strong> Therefore, <strong>one must somehow think of Kṛṣṇa, whether in a friendly way or inimically</strong>.(SB 7.1.30-32)</p> </blockquote>
<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ramakrishna</a> was a great Sage. So which school of thought did he belong or followed.</p>	45459	45452	3	2	45452	1	Shri Ramakrishna was from which school of thought?	4	45459	<p>The great mystic & Saint, Sri Ramakrishnan Paramahamsa, born in Bengal, started his journey with unflinching devotion to <em>Maa KAli</em> which later also took him towards the <em>Advaita</em> School of <em>Vedanta</em>, after the incident - " <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/32636/what-is-the-real-meaning-of-cutting-maa-kali-by-sword-of-jnana-by-sri-ramakrishn">when he cut <em>Maa Kali</em> into two pieces using the sword of <em>jnana (knowledge)</em></a> ".</p> <p>His Wikipedia Page quotes as follows</p> <blockquote> <p>Sri Ramakrishna experienced spiritual ecstasies from a young age, and was influenced by several religious traditions, including devotion toward the Goddess Kali, Tantra, Bhakti and Advaita Vedanta.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Vivekananda portrayed Ramakrishna as an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna#Transformation_into_neo-Vedantin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Advaita Vedantin</a>.</p> </blockquote> <p>Further as per <a href="https://ramakrishna.org/ramakrishnarevelation.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a> and <a href="https://belurmath.org/sri-ramakrishna/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this official source</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>The message of Sri Ramakrishna</strong> to the modern world, which he gave through his life and through his recorded conversations, may be briefly stated as follows:</p> <p><strong>The goal of human life is the realization of the Ultimate Reality</strong> which alone can give man supreme fulfilment and everlasting peace. This is the essence of all religions.</p> <p><strong>The Ultimate Reality is one</strong>; but it is personal as well as impersonal, and is indicated by different names (such as God, Ishvar, etc) in different religions.</p> </blockquote> <p>Further, in his Book - "<a href="https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Ramakrishna_Paramahamsa/19HUeX3JygwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=which%20school%20of%20thought%20ramakrishna%20paramahamsa&pg=PT26&printsec=frontcover" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ramakrishna Paramahamsa: Sadhaka of Dakshineswar</a>" ,<br> Amiya P Sen observes:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>It is difficult to be precise or categorical while placing <em>Sri Paramahamsa</em> within the complex range of <em>Vedantic</em> thoughts.</strong> There is good reason to believe that he was dissatisfied with the <em>advaitic</em> tendency to collapse the distinction between God and man. To illustrate this, he would employ a metaphor attributed to the <em>Sakta-Tantric</em> poet, Ramoprasad Sen. It is said that Ramoprasad was keen to taste the sweetness of sugar, without turning into sugar; that is, he preferred to remain in a state of dualistic <em>bhakti</em> rather than be drawn into a state of abstraction without identity. Sri Ramakrishnan's ecstatic attachment to the goddess <em>KAli</em>, his recurrent and potent use of devotional songs, his visions of various gods and goddesses, when in <em>saadhnaa</em>, all point to the nature of a <em>bhakta</em> (devotee).<br> On the other hand, after being initiated into <em>sanayaasa</em>, by a monk of Sankarite Dasanami order, he also chose to stay in a non-dualist <em>bhava</em> (mood) for a period of six months. Importantly too, his reading a text like <em>Bhagavad Gita</em> suggest not <em>bhakti</em> (devotion) but <em>tyaga</em> (renunciation), an attitude more easily identifiable with a practitioner of <em>Jnan Marga</em> (the Knowledge path).</p> </blockquote> <p>Some people also give terms like "neo-vedantin", but I personally don't understand or comprehend it, whatever it might connotes.</p> <p><strong>To conclude</strong> , with <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/24244/why-does-sri-ramakrishna-say-that-saguna-brahman-is-real-despite-being-an-advait">this QnA discussion</a>, and a brief reference <a href="https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Ramakrishna_Paramahamsa/19HUeX3JygwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=was%20ramakrishna%20paramahamsa%20advaitic&pg=PT26&printsec=frontcover" rel="nofollow noreferrer">from here</a> and what we have discussed above, one may be able to arrive at some conclusion that - it's really not feasible nor tenable to limit Sri Ramakrishnan Paramahansa with any particular or specific ideology systems or School of thought. He was a great <em>Hindu</em> saint, that too, a <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramahamsa" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Paramahamsa</a></em> at that, whose teachings, may be accommodated and understood as jewels of universal <em>prajna</em> (wisdom) of truth and reconciliation with the Universal Reality we call <em>Brahman.</em></p>
<p>The Jivatma will remain as a <em>Preta</em> unless <em>Śrāddha</em> is done, but non-Hindus do not perform <em>Śrāddha</em>.</p>	45566	45560	15	2	45560	10	Do all Non-Hindus remain as Pretas after death?	3	45566	<p>Usana Smriti's Chapter 7 has the following verse:</p> <br> <blockquote> <p>It is laid down that Sapindikaran, S'raddha should be preceeded by the Daiva, (i.e., offerings made to the Deities). There one should invite the departed Manes and point out again (i.e., invoke) the deceased.* (17)</p> </blockquote> <br> <p>On this verse the translator/commentator (Manmatha Nath Dutta) says:</p> <br> <blockquote> <p>A deceased person is called Preta till the celebration of the Sapindikaran Shraddha , after which he is designated Pitri,</p> </blockquote> <p>So, the answer to your question is a Yes, as per Hinduism (Hindu Scriptures). After death, the Jiva remains as a Preta till all the necessary rites are performed duly.</p> <p>Sometimes, if persons had unnatural deaths, additional remedies are required to be performed for these souls to be relieved from the Pretahood and attain the Pitrihood.</p> <p>Many of these remedies are mentioned in Satatapa Smriti's last Chapter:</p> <br> <blockquote> <p>For one dying of cholera one should treat a century of Brahmanas with sweet edibles. For one killed by fire sticking to the throat one should give away a dhenu of sesame. (48)</p> <p>For one dying of a disease of the hair one should perform eight Krichchhas. According to this regulation one should perform the funeral rites for them. (49)</p> <p><strong>Thereupon being freed from the condition of a preta (dead) the gratified Pitris</strong> (departed manes) grant sons, grand-sons, longevity, health and wealth. (50) Here ends the [account of the] : fruits [of various] acts given by S'atatapa to his disciple S'arabhanga accosting him with humility, (51)</p> </blockquote> <br> Therefore, according to Hinduism, anyone dead attains the Preta state. And, to relieve them from this Preta state, some rites are required to be performed, after which the Jivas are elevated to the Pitri state. <p>(NOTE:- <strong>This answer is from the perspective of Hindu scriptures. What happens to the non-followers of Hindu scriptures after their death is something that we shouldn't be concerned about on this site. We can't know that either unless we have knowledge about their rites and scriptures)</strong></p>
<blockquote> <p>अनाधृष्टानि धृषितो व्यास्यन्निधीँर<strong>देवाँ</strong> अमृणदयास्यः । मासेव सूर्यो वसु पुर्यमा ददे गृणानः शत्रूँरशृणाद्विरुक्मता॥४॥</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <ol start="4"> <li>He boldly cast down forts which none had e'er assailed: unwearied he destroycd the <strong>godless</strong> treasure-stores. Like Sun and Moon he took the stronghold's wealth away, and, praised in song, demolished foes with flashing dart.</li> </ol> </blockquote> <p>Adeva word is translated as godless here. Is this verse praying for destruction of Non Hindus or it's meaning is something else.</p>	45712	45704	2	2	45704	1	Is Rigveda 10:138:4 is asking to kill Non Hindus?	3	45712	<p>Well if you look at the Hindi translation of it here on <a href="http://www.vedakosh.com/rig-veda/mandal-10/sukta-138/mantra-rig-10-138-004" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vedakosh</a>, the complete translation says:</p> <blockquote> <p>(धृषितः) शत्रुओं का धर्षणकर्ता दबानेवाला (अनाधृष्टानि) न धर्षण करने योग्य बलों को (वि-आस्यत्) विशेषरूप से फेंकता है (अयास्यः) अभ्रान्त-न थका हुआ <strong>(निधीन्-अदेवान्) बलनिधि नास्तिक उद्दण्ड शत्रुओं को</strong> (अमृणात्) हिंसित करता है (मासा इव सूर्यः) अपनी रश्मि से सूर्य रस खींच लेता है, उसी प्रकार (पुर्यं वसु-आददे) शत्रु के पुरि नगरी में होनेवाले धन को बल को ले लेता है (गृणानः) प्रार्थना में लाया हुआ (विरुक्मता शत्रून्-अशृणात्) विशेष तेजस्वी वज्र से शत्रुओं को मारता है ॥४॥</p> </blockquote> <p>And if I translate the bold part in english i.e <code>निधीन्-अदेवान्) बलनिधि नास्तिक उद्दण्ड शत्रुओं को</code> it means powerful atheist defiant/rude enemy and not godless. It's just another case of misinterpretation by Griffith.</p>
<p>Yajur Veda 19.37</p> <blockquote> <p>Cleanse me the Fathers who enjoy Soma! Grandfathers make me clean! May Great-grandfathers cleanse me with a sieve that brings a century. May my Grandfathers cleanse me, may my Great-grand-fathers make me clean. With sieve that brings a century may I obtain full length of life.</p> </blockquote> <p>Why is this prayer asking or praying to fore fathers to clean them?</p> <p>I mean how it is possible, because once you are dead your soul goes for reincarnation. And takes birth on earth. So the souls of the grandfather and great grandfather will also go for reincarnation/rebirth. How can they clean.</p> <p>What is the reason behind this verse and explanations to this verse.</p>	46136	45721	4	2	45721	2	What is the explanation for Yajur Veda 19.37?	3	46136	<p>We need to read and understand the underlying sloka/verse to decipher the correct meaning intended in the Vedas. But you need to be careful with western translations when relying on their interpretations of vedas. I will write the sanskrit verse below and provide meaning for it, and then clarify what its intention is thereafter.</p> <p>But first, one thing I need to caveat - you said "<em>I mean how it is possible, because once you are dead your soul goes for reincarnation. And takes birth on earth. So the souls of the grandfather and great grandfather will also go for reincarnation/rebirth.</em> " -- that is not what the samhita portion of any veda says. That theory (you can never prove punarjanma in reality, it is just a theory) first came into picture in the vedAnta portion texts. As you are asking a question on samhita portion, lets stick to samhita knowledge base in understanding meaning of this verse. You cannot apply a non-samhita theory when trying to understand that samhita verse, right? Apples to oranges otherwise, so please stand corrected on that end.</p> <p>Now, your verse is from the <a href="http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/ind/aind/ved/yvw/vs/vs.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vajasaneyi shaka texts</a> of Shukla Yajur Veda. That kanda is for the Soutramani Yagnya and the set of verses 1 through 21, within which is the 19th verse you quoted, are meant for purification of the sacrificer and oblations to fathers essentially. So you need to keep that context in mind. Now your particular verse is the actual verse -</p> <p><em><strong>punántu mā pitáraḥ somyā́saḥ punántu mā pitāmahā́ḥ \|\| punántu prápitāmahāḥ pavítreṇa śatā́yuṣā \|\| punántu mā pitāmahā́ḥ somyā́saḥ punántu prápitāmahāḥ \|\| pavítreṇa śatā́yuṣā víśvam ā́yur vy àśnavai \|</strong></em></p> <p><em>Meaning</em>: <strong>'punAna' word underlying above verse <a href="https://www.learnsanskrit.cc/index.php?tran_input=punAna&direct=au&script=hk&link=yes&mode=3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">means</a> - wash off or destroy or purify. I am sure you know what 'pitarah' and 'pitamah' and 'prapitamah' means. The verse is literally asking our ancestors to purify us & allow us to live our full life. That is the meaning of it.</strong></p> <p>If you know Hindi, you can also see the correct meaning being provided <a href="http://literature.awgp.org/book/yajurveda/v2.15" rel="nofollow noreferrer">below</a>:</p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/lOk7c.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/lOk7c.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p> <p>As you can see, 'cleanse' is the wrong word used. It is 'purify'. Secondly 'sieve of a century' is an incorrect translation, heck I do not see that word 'sieve' at all in that sloka. So, we need to be careful when relying on western translations of our Vedas.</p> <p>So, you can see that this verse has nothing to do with asking someone to 'clean' us. It is worshipping our pitru devAs seeking their blessings to purify us & our life. That is all that is meant by it. Purification means removal of our sins, for there is no other way to purify us.</p> <p>Hope this answers your question.</p>
<blockquote> <p>BG 2.27: Death is certain for one who has been born, and rebirth is inevitable for one who has died. Therefore, you should not lament over the inevitable.</p> </blockquote> <p>Can you give some similar verses from the vedas. That says "<em>Death is certain for one who has been born</em>".</p>	45772	45765	5	2	45765	4	What are some similar verses to Gita 2:26	3	45772	<p>Mandukya Karika has a similar verse -</p> <blockquote> <p>Ātman, in regard to its birth, death, going and coming (i.e., transmigration) and its existing in different bodies, is not dissimilar to the Ākāśa (Mandukya Karika 3.9)</p> </blockquote> <p>Shankaracharya comments "The point which has been just stated is again thus developed:—Birth, death, etc., of the Ātman as seen in all bodies is like the creation, destruction, coming, going and existence of the Ghaṭākāśa"</p>
<p>The example of Ravana comes to mind, because he was a Bhakta of Prabhu Shiva.</p> <p>It seems like an awful lot of terrible people, like Ajamila, are forgiven just due to their devotions, and their sins are forgiven.</p> <p>However, at the same time, good people, who might be atheists, suffer a lot, simply because they are atheists.</p> <p>At the end of the day, is it just devotion that counts, and not individual actions (be they good or bad)?</p>	45878	45849	8	2	45849	4	Is an evil, but devoted, person more valued by the Gods than a good, but an atheistic, person?	4	45878	<p>This is a good question often asked by people. This question is asked because people think that good karma automatically should lead to moksha, bliss and relief from suffering. I will try to establish that this simplistic idea is not right.</p> <p><strong>Does Ishvara distinguish between a devotee and an atheist?</strong></p> <p>The answer is no.</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>I am the same towards all beings. None is hateful, and none dear to Me.</strong> But those who worship Me with devotion dwell in Me, and I too dwell in them.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Gita 9.29</strong></p> <p>Ishvara is neutral and does not take any position for or against any person.</p> <p><strong>So what really happens? Why should a sinner be forgiven if he turns to devotion towards God? Why should an atheist suffer even if he is a good person?</strong></p> <p>To answer these questions one should first find out the requirement to attain moksha and relief from suffering.</p> <blockquote> <p>Among thousands of men, there will just be one here or there striving for <strong>spiritual perfection</strong>. From among the aspirants so striving, one perchance knows Me in truth.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Gita 7.3</strong></p> <p>One attains release from suffering by practicing spiritual techniques leading to spiritual perfection. A person might have a bad karmic history but through the practice of spiritual disciplines attain moksha and freedom from suffering. An atheist might be a good person but due to not striving for spiritual perfection remains bound to suffering.</p> <blockquote> <p>Even a confirmed sinner, if he worships Me with unwavering faith and devotion, must verily be considered as righteous; for he has indeed taken the right resolve.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Gita 9.30</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>Soon will he become righteous and attain to lasting peace. No devotee of Mine will ever perish; you may swear to this effect, O Arjuna.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Gita 9.31</strong></p> <p><strong>An Analogy</strong></p> <p>Let me explain the whole situation by an analogy. Imagine Samsara as a very large ocean. Jivas are on little sail boats in this ocean and are suffering from a variety of ills. Let us now think of 2 jivas, one a bad person and another a good atheist.</p> <p>The bad person's boat is taking in water and his sail has holes in it due to past bad karma. He has been told by a kind hearted person that he will get relief if he sails his boat to a distant shore which is free from storms and tribulations. He listens to this advice and unfurls his sail and gets his boat moving towards that distant shore. He has numerous problems due to the condition of his boat and the sail but through persistence he succeeds to reach that distant shore and is free from all troubles.</p> <p>The good atheist's boat and sail are in excellent condition due to his good karmic history. He is also told that he will be free from the storms and tribulations of Samsara if he reaches that distant shore. However, unlike the bad person, the atheist does not believe in that distant shore. He tells himself that all he can see is an infinite ocean and there is no evidence that there is any shore reaching which all troubles disappear. So he does nothing and his boat keeps getting flung by the numerous storms of Samsara.</p> <p>The moral of this little story is that both the bad Jiva and the good atheist are responsible for their lives. The bad jiva strives for spiritual perfection and solves his problem. The good atheist does nothing and attains nothing.</p>
<p>Why materialism and materialistic people are bad.</p> <p>One can be materialistic by enjoying all kinds of <strong>legal</strong> thinks like alcohol, cigarette, meat and party and girls(i. e sex).</p> <p>As Long as you are not harming or abusing someone, it is okay to do the things you like.</p> <p>But <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/42492/22556">according to hindusim</a>, materialistic people will be born in evil wombs.</p> <p>Why is it like that, just because you are enjoying your life without harming anyone and doing thinks that are legal you will be born as a dog or other animal?</p>	45901	45890	4	2	45890	4	Why materialism is bad in Hinduism?	3	45901	<pre><code>Why materialism is bad in Hinduism? Why materialism and materialistic people are bad. </code></pre> <p>Sanathan dharma does not forbid materialistic enjoyment for everyone. Discouraging pleasures depend on several factors such as the goal, occupation, knowedge, virtue of human under consideration. Pleasures from materials are encouraged by scriptures</p> <p>For example, you can read the <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/41111/661">statements by Bhimasena</a> on the importance of pleasures. Many scriptures do explain the importance of materials and pleasures. It should be noted that pleasure (material enjoyments) is a purushartha in sanathan dharma.</p> <p>So, it is wrong to generalize that Hinduism is against pleasures. It is clear that Hinduism is against the pleasures that are against the virtue (dharma) of that particular human only.</p> <pre><code>One can be materialistic by enjoying all kinds of legal thinks like alcohol, cigarette, meat and party and girls(i.e., sex). </code></pre> <p>Sanathan dharma does not forbid the enjoyments you listed, if they falls in to the virtue of that person. It allows parties, sex with married partner, <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/9327/661">eating meat</a> etc., You can understand it from the words of Vamana</p> <blockquote> <p>O King, controller of the entire universe, although you are very munificent and are able to give Me as much land as I want, <strong>I do not want anything from you that is unnecessary. If a learned brāhmaṇa takes charity from others only according to his needs, he does not become entangled in sinful activities</strong>.</p> <p><a href="https://prabhupadabooks.com/sb/8/19" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[17, 19, 8, Srimad-Bhagavatam]</a></p> </blockquote> <p>Thus sanathan dharma regulates enjoyments based on the human under consideration only.</p> <pre><code> As Long as you are not harming or abusing someone, it is okay to do the things you like. </code></pre> <p>It is also important to understand that <strong>harming or abusing self</strong>, due to insufficient knowledge is always discouraged. A person who believes only in materialism and becomes slave for pleasures with out any wish for permanent happiness (moksha) is obviously discouraged in sanathan dharma. All the pleasures are temporary and everyone should ultimately realise it.</p> <p>Legality deals more with <strong>harming or abusing others</strong> and less with <strong>harming or abusing oneself</strong>. Sanathan dharma deals with both of them. Sanathan dharma does care about the permanent happiness and further lives of an individual also. So, the restrictions are only for gaining permanent happiness and not to fall in the trap of temporary pleasures.</p> <pre><code>But according to hindusim, materialistic people will be born in evil wombs. Why is it like that, just because you are enjoying your life without harming anyone and doing thinks that are legal you will be born as a dog or other animal? </code></pre> <p>It is because of the reason that they want materials and pleasures and not the permanent happiness. They will take birth in this material world only.</p> <blockquote> <p>In proportion to the extent of one’s religious or irreligious actions in this life, one must enjoy or suffer the corresponding reactions of his karma in the next. O best of the gods, we can see three different varieties of life, which are due to the contamination of the three modes of nature. The living entities are thus known as peaceful, restless and foolish; as happy, unhappy or in-between; or as religious, irreligious and semireligious. We can deduce that in the next life these three kinds of material nature will similarly act. Just as springtime in the present indicates the nature of springtimes in the past and future, so this life of happiness, distress or a mixture of both gives evidence concerning the religious and irreligious activities of one’s past and future lives.</p> <p><a href="https://prabhupadabooks.com/sb/6/1?d=1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[45-47, 1, 6, Srimad-Bhagavatam]</a></p> </blockquote> <p>If someone realises that material world is temporary, then there is a chance to get rid of the cycle of birth and death. If someone does not realise the true nature of pleasures then obviously the Jiva takes birth again and again solely due to the seek for pleasures and ignorance.</p>
<blockquote> <p>As a skilled craftsman makes a car, a singer I, Mighty One! this hymn for thee have fashioned. If thou, O Agni, God, accept it gladly, may we obtain thereby the heavenly Waters". – <a href="https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Rig_Veda/Mandala_5/Hymn_2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Rigveda 5.2.11)</a>,</p> </blockquote> <p>Is this verse saying that vedas are saying that the Vedas are authored by humans(rishies).</p> <hr /> <p><sup> I found this translation on quora while I was arguing with someone on the topic, "<em>vedas are divine</em>". That person gave this verse to prove Vedas are authored by humans(enlightened humans)</sup></p>	49011	45930	0	2	45930	1	What is the explanation for Rigveda 5.2.11?	3	49011	<p>The Vedas, including Rig Veda 5.2.11, were composed by Rishis. They did not come down from heaven. So the question boils down to how a book written by humans can be considered to be divine. The answer is that the spiritual information contained in the Vedas is not the product of the intellect of the Rishis but have been discovered through deep meditation. It is in this sense that the Vedas are considered to be anadi (eternal) and divine.</p> <blockquote> <p>There was a time when the Vedas themselves were considered eternal in the sense in which the divine truths contained therein were changeless and permanent and were only revealed to man. At a subsequent time, it appears that the utterances of the Vedic hymns with the knowledge of its meaning was important; and it was held that the hymns themselves must have had a divine origin. At a still later period, the meaning of the hymns showed that many of them could not be of divine origin, because they inculcated upon mankind performance of various unholy acts, such as torturing animals; and we can find many ridiculous stories in the Vedas. The correct meaning of the statement "The Vedas are beginning less and eternal" is that the law or truth revealed by them to man is permanent and changeless. Logic, geometry, chemistry, etc., reveal also a law or truth which is permanent and changeless and in that sense they are also beginning less and eternal. But no truth or law is absent from the Vedas, and I ask any one of you to point out to me any truth which is not treated of in them.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>(Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol.5: With the Swami Vivekananda at Madura, pp.205-206)</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>The Hindus have received their religion through revelation, the Vedas. They hold that the Vedas are without beginning and without end. It may sound ludicrous to this audience [in the West] how a book can be without beginning or end. But by the Vedas no books are meant. They mean the accumulated treasury of spiritual laws discovered by different persons in different times. Just as the law of gravitation existed before its discovery and would exist if all humanity forgot it, so is it with the laws that govern the spiritual world. The moral, ethical, and spiritual relations between soul and soul and between individual spirits and the Father of all spirits were there before their discovery, and would remain even if we forget them.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>(Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol.1: Paper on Hinduism, pp.6-7.)</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>The Vedas are anadi, eternal. The meaning of the statement is not, as is erroneously supposed by some, that the words of the Vedas are anadi, but that the spiritual laws inculcated by the Vedas are such. These laws, which are immutable and eternal, have been discovered at various times by great men or rishis, though some of them have been forgotten now, while others are preserved.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>(Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol.6: Notes Taken Down in Madras, 1892-93, p.103)</strong></p>
<p>Brihadaranyaka-upanishad Verse 6.4.3-6 :</p> <blockquote> <p>तस्या वेदिरुपस्थः, लोमानि बर्हिः, चर्माधिषवणे—समिद्धो मध्यतः—तौ मुष्कौ; स यावान्ह वै वाजपेयेन यजमानस्य लोको भवति, तावानस्य लोको भवति य एवं विद्वानधोपहासं चरति; आसां स्त्रीणां सुकृतं वृङ्क्ते; अथ य इदमविद्वानधोपहासं चरति, आस्य स्त्रियः सुकृतं वृञ्जते ॥ ३ ॥</p> <p>एतद्ध स्म वै तद्विद्वानुद्दालक आरुणिराह; एतद्ध स्म वै तद्विद्वान्नाको मौद्गल्य आह; एतद्ध स्म वै तद्विद्वान्कुमारहारित आह, बहवो मर्या ब्राह्मणायना निरिन्द्रिया विसुकृतोऽस्माल्लोकात्प्रयन्ति, य इदमविद्वांसोऽधोपहासं चरन्तीति; बहु वा इदं सुप्तस्य वा जाग्रतो वा रेतः स्कन्दति ॥ ४ ॥</p> <p>तदभिमृशेत्, अनु वा मन्त्रयेत— यन्मेऽद्य रेतः पृथिवीमस्कान्त्सीत्, यदोषधीरप्यसरद्यदपः । इदमहं तद्रेत आददे पुनर्मामैत्विन्द्रियम् पुनस्तेजः पुनर्भगः । पुनरग्निर्धिष्ण्या यथास्थानं कल्पन्ताम्, इत्यनामिकाङ्गुष्ठाभ्यामादायान्तरेण स्तनौ वा भ्रुवौ वा निमृज्यात् ॥ ५ ॥</p> <p>अथ यद्युदक आत्मानं पश्येत्तदभिमन्त्रयेत—मयि तेज इन्द्रियं यशो द्रविणं सुकृतमिति; श्रीर्ह वा एषा स्त्रीणां यन्मलोद्वासाः; तस्मान्मलोद्वाससं यशस्विनीमभिक्रम्योपमन्त्रयेत ॥ ६ ॥</p> <p>tasyā vedirupasthaḥ, lomāni barhiḥ, carmādhiṣavaṇe—samiddho madhyataḥ—tau muṣkau; sa yāvānha vai vājapeyena yajamānasya loko bhavati, tāvānasya loko bhavati ya evaṃ vidvānadhopahāsaṃ carati; āsāṃ strīṇāṃ sukṛtaṃ vṛṅkte; atha ya idamavidvānadhopahāsaṃ carati, āsya striyaḥ sukṛtaṃ vṛñjate \|\| 3 \|\|</p> <p>etaddha sma vai tadvidvānuddālaka āruṇirāha; etaddha sma vai tadvidvānnāko maudgalya āha; etaddha sma vai tadvidvānkumārahārita āha, bahavo maryā brāhmaṇāyanā nirindriyā visukṛto'smāllokātprayanti, ya idamavidvāṃso'dhopahāsaṃ carantīti; bahu vā idaṃ suptasya vā jāgrato vā retaḥ skandati \|\| 4 \|\|</p> <p>tadabhimṛśet, anu vā mantrayeta— yanme'dya retaḥ pṛthivīmaskāntsīt, yadoṣadhīrapyasaradyadapaḥ \| idamahaṃ tadreta ādade punarmāmaitvindriyam punastejaḥ punarbhagaḥ \| punaragnirdhiṣṇyā yathāsthānaṃ kalpantām, ityanāmikāṅguṣṭhābhyāmādāyāntareṇa stanau vā bhruvau vā nimṛjyāt \|\| 5 \|\| <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc122237.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[SOURCE]</a></p> </blockquote> <p>What is the English translation of these verses. Thses verses are not translated in the website.</p>	45986	45973	1	2	45973	1	What is the English translation of brihadaranyaka-upanishad Verse 6.4.3-6?	3	45986	<p>Here is the <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15098.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">translation of Hume</a>;</p> <blockquote> <ol start="3"> <li><p>Her lap is a sacrificial altar; her hairs, the sacrificial grass; her skin, the soma-press. The two labia of the vulva are the fire in the middle. Verily, indeed, as great as is the world of him who sacrifices with the Vâjapeya ('Strength-libation') sacrifice, so great is the world of him who practises sexual intercourse, knowing this; he turns the good deeds of women to himself. But he who practises sexual intercourse without knowing this-women turn his good deeds unto themselves.</p> </li> <li><p>This, verily, indeed, it was that Uddâlaka Âruṅi knew when he said:--</p> </li> </ol> <p>This, verily, indeed, it was that Nâka Maudgalya knew when he said:--</p> <p>This, verily, indeed, it was that Kumârahârita knew when he said: 'Many mortal men, Brahmans by descent, go forth from this world, impotent and devoid of merit, namely those who practise sexual intercourse without knowing this.'</p> <p>[If] even this much 1 semen is spilled, whether of one asleep or of one awake, <a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/iigAQ.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer">5</a> then he should touch it, or [without touching] repeat:--</p> <p>'What semen has of mine to earth been spilt now, Whate'er to herb has flowed, whate'er to water--</p> <p>This very semen I reclaim! Again to me let vigor come! Again, my strength; again, my glow! Again the altars and the fire Be found in their accustomed place!' Having spoken thus, he should take it with ring-finger and thumb, and rub it on between his breasts or his eye-brows.</p> <ol start="6"> <li>Now, if one should see himself in water, he should recite over it the formula: 'In me be vigor, power, beauty, wealth, merit!'</li> </ol> <p>This, verily, indeed, is loveliness among women: when she has removed the clothes of her impurity. Therefore when she has removed the clothes of her impurity and is beautiful, one should approach and invite her.</p> </blockquote> <p>The alternate translation is from <a href="https://archive.org/details/PrincipalUpanishads/page/n324/mode/1up" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Principal of Upanishad</a> by Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan.</p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/PJehO.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/PJehO.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a> <a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/R6abY.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/R6abY.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a> <a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/iigAQ.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/iigAQ.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>I had seen the arguments of some of the Vaishnavas before, that Gautama rejected the Vedic precepts to keep the evil and ignorant out of the way of Dharma, but after all, why would God send someone who rejected him countless times? Someone that would found a new line of thoughts that for a time usurped the Vedic faith in India? Is there anything that can prove this in our scriptures?</p>	46018	46004	7	2	46004	2	Why does part of Vaishnavism consider Gautama Buddha to be an Avatara of Lord Vishnu, even though he rejected Vedic wisdom?	3	46018	<p>All serious Vaishnavas consider Buddha an avatar of Vishnu, but the question is <em>which</em> Buddha? First, let us prove that the Buddha was indeed an avatar.</p> <p>Some claim that the Buddha was either an interpolation in the puranas or that the puranas themselves came after the time of the Buddha. Allegedly, this would bring Buddhists into the fold of Hinduism. However, that would make the following verse of Srimad Bhagavatam historically inaccurate.</p> <blockquote> <p>When the atheists, after being well versed in the Vedic scientific knowledge, annihilate inhabitants of different planets, flying unseen in the sky on well-built rockets prepared by the great scientist Maya, the Lord will bewilder their minds by dressing Himself attractively as Buddha and will preach on subreligious principles. [<a href="https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/2/7/37/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SB 2.7.37</a>]</p> </blockquote> <p>Obviously, there were no rockets toward the beginning of the Kali Yuga (traditionally accepted as 3102 BCE but may actually be debatable as seen <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/32299/what-scriptures-discuss-krishnas-time-in-relation-to-the-yuga-sandhi-periods">here</a>), so this verse would not further the puranic "agenda" to subsume Buddhism under Hinduism. Actually, this verse is referring to the Buddha in another kali-yuga as Srila Prabhupada's commentary says.</p> <blockquote> <p>According to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, the Buddha incarnation mentioned in this verse appeared in a different Kali age. In the duration of life of one Manu there are more than seventy-two Kali-yugas, and in one of them the particular type of Buddha mentioned here would appear.</p> </blockquote> <p>Part of the actual confusion regarding the Buddha avatar stems from the fact that there are different Buddhas mentioned in the puranas (the above verse being an example). One chapter of the Vishnu Purana also discusses Buddha being sent by Vishnu to delude the atheists, but that Buddha seemed to have emanated the Jain doctrine as well. (I do not currently have the relevant verses.) With that out of the way, let us turn to the Buddha of the present Kali Yuga.</p> <blockquote> <p>Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Añjanā, in the province of Gayā, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist. [<a href="https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/1/3/24/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SB 1.3.24</a>]</p> </blockquote> <p>Based on my research, I have come across three different views regarding the identity of the avatara known as Buddha.</p> <p><strong>1. The Buddha Mentioned Throughout the Puranas Is Gautama Buddha.</strong></p> <p>According to Prabhupada's commentary on verse 1.3.24, Gautama Buddha incarnated to stop animal sacrifice since it was being used as an excuse to eat meat (which is typical in this age).</p> <blockquote> <p>Because the asuras or the so-called scholars of Vedic literatures put forward the evidence of animal-killing in the Vedas, Lord Buddha superficially denied the authority of the Vedas. This rejection of the Vedas by Lord Buddha was adopted in order to save people from the vice of animal-killing as well as to save the poor animals from the slaughtering process of their big brothers who clamor for universal brotherhood, peace, justice and equity. There is no justice when there is animal-killing. Lord Buddha wanted to stop it completely, and therefore his cult of ahiṁsā was propagated not only in India but also outside the country.</p> </blockquote> <p>As for why the Buddha would go against the Vedas, Prabhupada says that it was due to the circumstances of that time.</p> <blockquote> <p>Technically Lord Buddha’s philosophy is called atheistic because there is no acceptance of the Supreme Lord and because that system of philosophy denied the authority of the Vedas. But that is an act of camouflage by the Lord. Lord Buddha is the incarnation of Godhead. As such, he is the original propounder of Vedic knowledge. He therefore cannot reject Vedic philosophy. But he rejected it outwardly because the sura-dviṣa, or the demons who are always envious of the devotees of Godhead, try to support cow-killing or animal-killing from the pages of the Vedas, and this is now being done by the modernized sannyāsīs.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>2. Gautama Buddha Is Not the Avatar of Vishnu</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.stephen-knapp.com/were_there_two_buddhas.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This</a> article by Stephen Knapp argues that the avatar of Vishnu known as Buddha incarnated before Gautama Buddha. The former is known as the son of Añjanā while the latter was the son of Shuddhodana and Mayadevi. (Someone could claim that Añjanā was an epithet of Mayadevi, the mother, but I do not think she was ever called Añjanā in her life, nor did she have a name change.) The former was born in Kikata, also known as Gaya, while the latter was born in Kapilavastu, Nepal.</p> <p>Knapp discusses several verses from Srimad Bhagavatam, Buddhist scriptures, and the Amarakosha to prove his point. I will just quote what he said about the Amarakosha.</p> <blockquote> <p>In these verses, starting with <em>sarvajnah</em> and finishing with <em>munih</em> are eighteen names addressing the original Vishnu incarnation Lord Buddha. The next seven names beginning with <em>Shakya-munistu</em> to <em>Mayadevi-Sutascha</em> refer to Shakya Simha Buddha. The Buddha referred to in the first eighteen names and the Buddha referred to in the later seven names are clearly not the same person. [This clearly indicates that knowledge of the two Buddhas was well known long ago.] In the commentary on <em>Amarakosha</em> by the learned Sri Raghunatha Cakravarti, he also divided the verses into two sections. To the eighteen names of Vishnu Avatara Buddha he writes the words "<em>astadash buddha</em>", which clearly refers only to the Vishnu avatara. Next, on his commentary for the seven aliases of Shakya Simha he writes: "<em>ete sapta shakya bangshabatirneh buddha muni bishete</em>", meaning "the next seven names starting from <em>Shakya-munistu</em> are aliases of Buddha-muni [the human] who was born into the Shakya dynasty."</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>3. Gautama Buddha Was an Avesha Avatar of Vishnu</strong></p> <p>The first view held that Vishnu incarnated as Gautama Buddha, and the second view held that Vishnu Buddha was different from the atheistic Buddha. However, in many of his videos on DharmaNation, Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya has said that Gautama Buddha was an avesha avatar, which means he was not Vishnu Himself but a being empowered to fulfill his mission. In <a href="https://youtu.be/PkTc0z0SM_I?t=1307" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a> video in particular, something that I found quite interesting was that Gautama Buddha never actually taught shunyavada (the doctrine of voidness). He also never claimed to be founding a new religion called Buddhism, and he was in fact following the Vedic scriptures. However, he only taught the negative half of the philosophy: the Buddha said that we are not the body, but he did not teach that we are the soul. There is no evidence in Buddhist scriptures that Gautama Buddha spread shunyavada; this misconception came about when Buddhism became systematized by Nagarjuna hundreds of years later. The Buddha's mission was to transition society away from animal sacrifice toward self-realization and meditation.</p> <p>Vishnu Purana's aforementioned account of the Buddha can also be considered proof that he was an avesha avatar.</p> <p>At the end of the day, there are several different viewpoints about the Buddha in Hindu scriptures; after all, this is quite a tricky subject. Not everyone believes in the same thing. I answered a lot more than just what you were asking, but the answer to your main question can be found under the first heading.</p>
<p>Every word in Sanskrit can be further divided into letters that cannot be divided further.</p> <p>In this context, what are the letters that are further indivisible, used to form om ॐ in Sanskrit?</p>	46020	46019	7	2	46019	12	What are the components of the word om (ॐ)	5	46020	<p>The Omkāra is made up of 3 letters: (1) akāra - अ; (2) ukāra - उ; (3) makāra - म and also an anusvāra (ardhamātrā).</p> <p>It is often a misconception that it has only the first three letters but the Upanishads are clear that it has even an anusvāra. So you will pronounce it as Om and let the ma resonate after for a bit in the mouth/ nose area.</p> <p>The Nādabindūpaniṣad verse 1 beautifully describes the components of Omkāra in the form of a swan:</p> <blockquote> <p>अकारो दक्षिणः पक्ष उकारस्तूत्तरः स्मृतः । मकारं पुच्छमित्याहुरर्धमात्रा तु मस्तकम्॥१॥</p> <p>The <strong>syllable A</strong> is considered to be its (the bird Om's) right wing;<strong>the syllable U</strong>, its left; <strong>the syllable M</strong>, its tail; and <strong>the ardhamātrā (half-metre)</strong> is said to be its head.</p> </blockquote> <p>A better description of the Omkāra can be found in the Praṇavopaniṣad:</p> <blockquote> <p>It has 3 full matra (a, u, m) and one half matra (anusvāra) and that is its auspicious Shiva form. (Verse 3b)</p> <p>The Rigveda, Earth, Gārhapatya Agni and Lord Brahma are described as the syllable ‘a’ by knowers or Brahman (verse 4)</p> <p>The Yajurveda, Antariksha, Dakshinagni and Lord Vishnu are known as the syllable ‘u’ (verse 5)</p> <p>The Samaveda, Dyuloka, Ahvaniya Agni and Lord Shiva are described as the syllable ‘m’ (verse 6)</p> </blockquote> <hr /> <p>One can better understand the components of Om by looking at the Tamil and Telugu symbols for it though all scripts focus on mainly the anusvāra and omit the makāra altogether, while yet pronouncing it as a makāra and omitting to pronounce the makāra in combination with the anusvāra.</p>
<blockquote> <p>BG 2:42 : Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.</p> </blockquote> <p>Is this verse saying that we should reject vedas?</p>	46114	46113	8	2	46113	6	Is gita 2:45 asking us to reject the Vedas?	3	46114	<p>Absolutely not.</p> <p>But for understanding this verse's clear meaning we have to also know the other two verses before it. Here they are:</p> <p>Chapter 2</p> <blockquote> <p>यामिमां पुष्पितां वाचं प्रवदन्त्यविपश्चितः । वेदवादपराः पार्थ नान्यदस्तीतिवादिनः ॥ ४३ ॥</p> <ol start="43"> <li>The undiscerning, delighting in the study of the Veda, O Pārthа, speak flowery words declaring that there is nothing else.</li> </ol> <p>कामात्मानः स्वर्गपरा जन्मकर्मफलेप्सवः । क्रियाविशेषबहुला भोगैश्वर्यगतीः प्रति ॥ ४४॥</p> <ol start="44"> <li>They are filled with desires and have heaven as their highest goal; during their lifetime they strive to attain the fruit of actions and prescribe many special rites for the attainment of enjoyment and power.</li> </ol> </blockquote> <p>Now, let's check verse 45 and its relation with it.</p> <blockquote> <p>भोगैश्वर्यप्रसक्तानां तयापहृतचेतसाम्। व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धिः समाधौ न विधीयते ॥ ४५ ॥</p> <ol start="45"> <li>A discerning state of intellect does not arise in the meditation of those who are attached to enjoyment and power, and whose minds are carried away by those flow- ery words.</li> </ol> </blockquote> <p>So, you see here it is said so about someone who thinks vedas just as poem of flowery words, and about those who wants materialistic pleasure and want to go to heaven. Now, as Bhagavad Gita is spiritual scripture, it is more about going beyond karma. And here it is said about karma kanda imo.</p> <p>Let's check commentary of Shree Abhinavgupta, great acharya of Kashmir Shaivism about these three verses above:</p> <blockquote> <p>"Those who are overwhelmed by desire for the fruits of action perceive Vedic texts as "flowery words" (puspităm vācam). In other words, they perceive the Vedas as being permeated by the fruits of sacrifice, such as the heaven that might be attained in the future. These people accept action as the only purpose in life. This way of thinking shows that they were not properly educated. They have been misled by their wrong interpretation of the Vedas, which is the result of their own imagination. Therefore, even if they possess a decisive intellect they are not entitled to samādhi. This is because they practice samādhi in order to attain some limited result. This is in brief the purport of these three verses."</p> </blockquote> <p>Even, Lord Shiva in Kularnava tantra mentions other shastras as 'Pashu' shastras. Why? Not to show that they are inferior to Kaula tantra shastras but because when you read any shastra, you interpret it in your way. You don't see Vedas as Vedas but interpret it yourself. That's the reason Shree Krishna also tells about this.</p> <p>It is not to reject Vedas, but to make us beware to not interpret it in wrong way and also about going beyond chakra of Karma.</p> <p>Namah Shivaay</p>
<p>According to advaita only God exists and every thing is the manifestation of God(Brahman) so even materialistic desire should be God's manifestation.</p> <p>So if one goes for lust(kama) which by default is God's manifestation will he attain Moksha.</p> <p>If not why, because everything is God(God's manifestation) so whether you worship God as an idol or worship/followed your desire at the end of the day you are worshipping God.</p>	46214	46211	4	2	46211	3	If God alone exist(advaita) then what's wrong with following materialistic desire?	4	46214	<p>Firstly from Brahman alone this whole world comes and from that, Sat (Eternal i.e Atman ) and Asat(Non Eternal like Body, Elements in Prakriti etc) come from. But still Brahman transcends everything and is in-dweller of the body as well as the creation. Desires only in accordance with Dharma will lead to good path. Other desires keep binding man in Samsara. Even if one worships God by desire, By grace of Lord he will attain him.</p> <ul> <li>Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no nonexistence. But the nature of both these, indeed, has been realized by the seers of Truth.(Gita 2.16)</li> </ul> <blockquote> <p>Swami Sivananda writes "The changeless homogeneous Atman or the Self always exists. It is the only solid Reality. This phenomenal world of names and forms is ever changing. Hence it is unreal"</p> </blockquote> <ul> <li>He who, <strong>dwells in all things, and yet is other than all things</strong>, whom all things do not know, whose body are all things, who controls all things from within - He is your Soul, the inner Controller, the immortal. (Brihadaranyaka Up 3.7.15)</li> <li>Among creatures <strong>I am desire which is not contrary to righteousness</strong>, O scion of the Bharata dynasty.(Gita 7.11)</li> <li><strong>When all desires clinging to the heart of one fall off</strong>, then the mortal becomes immortal and here <strong>attains Brahman</strong>.(Katha Up 2.3.14)</li> <li>By enmity or by devotional service, by fear, <strong>by affection or by lusty desire</strong> — by all of these or any one of them — <strong>if a conditioned soul somehow or other concentrates his mind upon the Lord, the result is the same</strong>, for the Lord, because of His blissful position, is never affected by enmity or friendship.(SB 7.1.26)</li> </ul>
<p>I got Part I to V except for part II. The translator of the book is Ganganath Jha.</p>	48008	47850	1	2	47850	1	Can anybody share the ebook link of Manubhashya of Medhatithi Part II (English Translation)?	3	48008	<p>Manusmrti with the Manubhashya of Medhatithi (translated by Ganganath Jha) has 10 volumes. The first two volumes contain Sanskrit verses. The English translation is present in the 3rd to 7th volumes. These five volumes are also known as Part I to Part V. 8th-10th volumes have some additional notes. Here I have added the links to the important volumes (3rd to 7th). All pdfs are good and the scan quality is excellent.</p> <ol> <li><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.46009" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Volume 3</a></p> </li> <li><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.46010" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Volume 4</a></p> </li> <li><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.46011" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Volume 5</a></p> </li> <li><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.46012" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Volume 6</a></p> </li> <li><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.46014" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Volume 7</a></p> </li> </ol>
<p>People say that Parashara Smriti is for Kali Yuga. So it is no doubt an important text. Is there any English translation available?</p>	48012	47878	0	2	47878	0	Where can I find the English translation of Parashara Smriti?	3	48012	<p>The link everyone is sharing is not a published book. Someone created that document. The only published translation of Parashara Smriti that I could find is part of the following book</p> <p>The Dharma Sastra or The Hindu Law Codes (English Translation) Vol. II by Manmatha Nath Dutt (Shastri).</p> <p>Apart from Parasar Samhita, it also contains translations of Sankha, Gautama, Apastamba and Vashistha Samhitas.</p> <p>Link -</p> <p><a href="https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.31797/page/n5/mode/2up" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.31797/page/n5/mode/2up</a></p>
<p>We all know Lord Krishna told Arjuna that</p> <pre><code>"कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन । मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भुर्मा ते संगोऽस्त्वकर्मणि ॥" Perform your actions but do not have any expectation of the fruits. </code></pre> <p>Here, in context, actions are only duties? or are they desires too? If we continuously perform duties, then we are robots. Why god tell us to perform only duties like machines? I think there must be some humanism too.</p> <p>Recently, I was working at home as I am software engineer, I work from home. I heard voice of 2 sadhus who were sanyasis. abstemious men. I went in gallery and they asked me to offer them food. I accepted their request and my mother offered them food.</p> <p>They were talking about Shrimad Bhagwat Geeta. So they asked my name. I told them that my name is "Parth" and they told me below shloka/verse.</p> <pre><code>ॐ पार्थाय प्रतिबोधितां भगवता नारायणेन स्वयं व्यासेन ग्रथितां पुराणमुनिना मध्ये महाभारतम् । अद्वैतामृतवर्षिणीं भगवतीम्- अष्टादशाध्यायिनीम् अम्ब त्वामनुसन्दधामि भगवद्- गीते भवद्वेषिणीम् ॥ १॥ Om Parthaya prathi bodhithm bhagawataa naaraayanena swayam, Vyasaena gratitaam Puraana muninaa madhye Mahabaratam... </code></pre> <p>sloka meaning:</p> <pre><code>Om ! “Oh Bhagavad Gita, destroyer of rebirth(s), thou hast been instructed to partha(son of prutha) by Lord Narayana himself and later included by the ancient sage Vyasa within the Mahabharata. Showerer of the nectar of advaita, of eighteen chapters, Oh Mother! I meditate upon thee” </code></pre> <p>So I asked them that Lord Krishna has told Arjuna to perform karma, so is this what I do as engineer, I must do it without expectation of fruits?</p> <p>The sage replied to me - "No son, it is for to get money and make your stomach full for foods. Karma means incantation."</p> <p>Then both of them finished their lunch and left our home after praising my mother's food. But this incident originated curiosity to know exactly <strong>what is karma?</strong></p>	48534	48510	3	2	48510	3	What is karma? Why god tell to perform duties?	3	48534	<p>You asked “<strong>What is Karma”</strong>?</p> <p>The very definition of karma is action or work. The karma word used in Gita for karma yoga means - work or action. It doesn’t mean karma as in “residual karma or sanchit or parbadh karma” (when talking in regards to karma yoga)</p> <p><a href="http://www.vivekananda.net/PDFBooks/KarmaYoga.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">From Karma Yoga by Swami Vivekananda -</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The word Karma is derived from the Sanskrit Kri, to do; all action is Karma. But in Karma-Yoga we have simply to do with the word Karma as meaning work</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Every mental and physical blow that is given to the soul, by which, as it were, fire is struck from it, and by which its own power and knowledge are discovered, is Karma, this word being used in its widest sense. Thus we are all doing Karma all the time. I am talking to you: that is Karma. You are listening: that is Karma. We breathe: that is Karma. We walk: Karma. Everything we do, physical or mental, is Karma, and it leaves its marks on us.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Karma and humanism:</strong></p> <p>Humanism aspects (how you treat your family and society) still stays as scriptures ask you to perform mandatory <strong>duties</strong> at each stages of life. See the duties mentioned in <a href="http://artstudio.co.za/Duties_of_the_Householder_Mahanirvana_Tantra.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Maha Nirvana tantra</a> for example.</p> <p>Now regarding question or doubts if this is really applicable to us or Sanyaasi, see following</p> <p> From Chapter 2 of Karma yoga by Swami Vivekanand</p> <blockquote> <p>The <strong>householder</strong> should be devoted to God; the knowledge of God should be his goal of life. Yet he <strong>must work constantly, perform all his duties;</strong> <strong>he must give up the fruits of his actions to God</strong>. It is the most difficult thing in this world to work and not care for the result, to help a man and never think that he ought to be grateful,</p> </blockquote>
<p>What was the height of Lord Rama and that of Lord Krishna according to Ramayana and Mahabharata?</p> <p>Please answer along with the scripture quotations.</p>	48598	48589	5	2	48589	3	What were the heights of Rama and Krishna?	3	48598	<p>Partial Answer: Lord Rama</p> <p><a href="https://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/content?language=dv&field_kanda_tid=5&field_sarga_value=35&field_sloka_value=18" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Valimiki Ramayana: Sundara Kanda: Sarga 35: Verse 18</a>, Lord Rama's height is given as four Hindu cubits or four kishku(चतुष्किष्कुः):</p> <blockquote> <p>त्रिवलीवांस्त्र्यवनतश्चतुर्व्यङ्गस्त्रिशीर्षवान्।</p> <p>चतुष्कलश्चतुर्लेखश्चतुष्किष्कुश्चतु स्समः।।5.35.18।।</p> <p>Translation</p> <p>चतुष्किष्कुः he is four cubits in height</p> <p>He has three folds in the skin of his neck and belly, is depressed in the middle of his soles and the nipples, undersized at four placesthe neck, penis, shanks and back, has three spirals on his head, has four lines under his thumb, has four lines on his forehead, he is a person with four cubits in height and symmetrical arms, cheeks and thighs.</p> </blockquote> <hr /> <p><a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/kishku" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1 kishku = 24 angulas</a><br /> <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%E1%B9%85gula" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1 angula = 1.763 cm</a><br /> Therefore 4 * 24 * 1.763 = 169.248 cm</p> <p>So approximately 170 cm which is 5'7" feet tall. As this is a conservative estimate amd assuming even Valmiki was speaking approximately, one could reasonably assume Lord Rama was close to 6'0" tall.</p>
<p>I am aware that the yuga lengths have the ratio 4:3:2:1 and have seen in various posts that a Kali Yuga is 432,000 years. What religious texts (Puranas, Mahabharat, Ramayan, etc) mention these Yuga lengths? If possible, can one site the words from these religious texts.</p>	48688	48669	10	2	48669	9	Which scripture mentions Yuga length?	3	48688	<p>I have given below a discussion of the length of the yugas in Linga Purana.</p> <blockquote> <p>O brahmins, the Krta yuga consists of four thousand years. Four hundred, three hundred, two hundred and hundred years respectively constitute the period of transition both at the beginning and end of a yuga. [1]</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Linga Purana I.4.5-6</strong></p> <p>[1] Each Yuga is prefixed and suffixed by a sandhya which specifies the advent and culmination of yuga. The two sandhyas of a yuga are of equal length though their period of duration differs from yuga to yuga. Thus Krta Yuga lasts for four thousand divine years and its sandhyas for eight hundred such years; Treta lasts for three thousand divine years and its sandhyas for six hundred such years; Dvapara lasts for two thousand years and its sandhyas for four hundred; Kali lasts for one thousand and its sandhyas for two hundred such years. The total period for the four yugas is ten thousand divine years and that for their sandhyas is two thousand divine years.</p> <blockquote> <p>The amsaka, therefore, is one-sixth of the duration of each yuga. The period of duration of Treta, Dvapara and kali is respectively three thousand, two thousand and one thousand years without their amsaka parts.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Linga Purana I.4.7-8</strong></p> <p>The above two passages give us the duration of the yugas in divine years. Now we have to change the duration into human years.</p> <blockquote> <p>The people who know arithmetic say that the three hundred and sixty thousand human years constitute the period of a thousand divine years.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Linga Purana I.4.23</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>The duration of a yuga is calculated according to the divine reckoning. The first yuga is name Krta; thereafter comes Treta and then Dvapara and Kali. O men of holy rites, these are the (names of the four) yugas. Henceforth the number of years of each yuga which have been mentioned earlier in divine reckoning are now being counted according to human reckoning. The Krta consists of one million four hundred and forty thousand human years; Treta of one million eighty thousand years; Dvapara of seven hundred twenty thousand years and Kali of three hundred and sixty thousand human years; Thus the duration of the four yugas without the period of junction and transition totals to three million six hundred thousand human years. If Sandhya period is included, the set of four ages will consist of four million three hundred and twenty thousand years.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Linga Purana I.4.24-30</strong></p>
<p>First, I have already referred to the following question - <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/16011/does-bhagavad-gita-detest-atheists">Does Bhagavad Gita detest atheists?</a> But that didn't help me.</p> <p>I have been reading a translation of the Gita since a few days; I came across a line saying that those who deny my existence are foolish and demonic. So my question is: Does that say that every atheist is bad, or only the desireful, and the ones that treat other people badly?</p>	48695	48690	5	2	48690	5	What exactly does Bhagavadh Gita say about athesits	3	48695	<p>Bhagavadgita condemns only atheists who do evil acts to destroy the world. This is what Gita says about Demonic people -</p> <blockquote> <p>Those who are demoniac do not know what is to be done and what is not to be done. Neither cleanliness nor proper behavior nor truth is found in them. They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in control. They say it is produced of sex desire and has no cause other than lust.Following such conclusions, the demoniac, who are lost to themselves and who have no intelligence, engage in unbeneficial, horrible works meant to destroy the world.Taking shelter of insatiable lust and absorbed in the conceit of pride and false prestige, the demoniac, thus illusioned, are always sworn to unclean work, attracted by the impermanent. They believe that to gratify the senses is the prime necessity of human civilization. Thus until the end of life their anxiety is immeasurable. Bound by a network of hundreds of thousands of desires and absorbed in lust and anger, they secure money by illegal means for sense gratification.The demoniac person thinks: “So much wealth do I have today, and I will gain more according to my schemes. So much is mine now, and it will increase in the future, more and more. He is my enemy, and I have killed him, and my other enemies will also be killed. I am the lord of everything. I am the enjoyer. I am perfect, powerful and happy. I am the richest man, surrounded by aristocratic relatives. There is none so powerful and happy as I am. I shall perform sacrifices, I shall give some charity, and thus I shall rejoice.” In this way, such persons are deluded by ignorance. Thus perplexed by various anxieties and bound by a network of illusions, they become too strongly attached to sense enjoyment and fall down into hell. Self-complacent and always impudent, deluded by wealth and false prestige, they sometimes proudly perform sacrifices in name only, without following any rules or regulations. Bewildered by false ego, strength, pride, lust and anger, the demons become envious of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is situated in their own bodies and in the bodies of others, and blaspheme against the real religion. (BG As It Is 16.5-18)</p> </blockquote>
<p>I have read that humans shouldn't have desires but I am student it becomes sometimes hard to study if I don't have desires to succed I can't imagine because without desires I can't have passion and without passion I wouldnt take actions?</p>	48843	48839	5	2	48839	5	How can I work without desires?	3	48843	<p><strong>Dharma, Artha, Kama</strong> and <strong>moksha</strong> are four purusharthas. So Sanatana dharma accepts that ordinary people will have desires. So people are free to work with desires.</p> <p>Nishkama karma, work with out desire, is only for people who want to attain moksha.</p> <p><strong>Karma Yoga is explained below.</strong></p> <p>You are asking about the practicality of nishkama Karma which is part of Karma Yoga. A person practices Karma Yoga when his work benefits other people and the work is done without caring about the result or name, fame, promotion, wealth etc. This type of work is called nishkama karma. Nishkama Karma is not about the ordinary karma like professional work done by us. The idea behind nishkama karma is that God dwelling in the other person is giving us a chance to serve God and thus help ourselves. Whether the other person is helped will depend on God.</p> <p><strong>Does detachment from results mean we should not plan at all to get good results when performing karma? Should we not focus on efficiency of work because we do not care about results?</strong></p> <p>You should of course plan to the best of your ability. You also should focus on efficiency of work. You should, however, always remember that it is hubris to think that one human can help another human.</p> <p><strong>Only Ishvara can help</strong></p> <blockquote> <p>Therefore, O dear one! Give up your infatuation born of ignorance, which makes you feel worried, thinking – how will these helpless people get without me? To think that one can save or protect another while one’s own body, subject to the power of time, karma and Guna, is decaying, is like a person in the grip of a python thinking of saving another.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Srimad Bhagavata Purana I.13.44-45</strong></p> <p>An example of nishkama karma is the Sun. I am posting a poem by Hafiz, the 13th century Persian poet, that captures the essence of Karma Yoga.</p> <blockquote> <p>Even</p> <p>After</p> <p>All this time</p> <p>The sun never says to the earth,</p> <p>"You owe</p> <p>Me"</p> <p>Look</p> <p>what happens With a love like that,</p> <p>It lights the</p> <p>Whole Sky.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>The Gift, Poems of Hafiz, The Great Sufi Master, translated by Daniel Ladinsky.</strong></p> <p>The sun does not care what man does with the energy of the sun that makes life possible on earth. The sun just keeps on pouring energy. It doesn't matter what field you are in. If you can help even one person without caring about the result of your help then you are doing Karma Yoga.</p> <p><strong>It is not possible to do karma Yoga in a job setting.</strong> You will most likely get fired if you are unattached to the result of your work. Karma Yoga is after all a Yoga and unattached work can only be done as part of divine work.</p> <p>A householder will find it difficult to do nishkama karma. He will hanker after the fruits of his work. He will certainly lose motivation if he doesn't have the expectation of good things of life and if his effort fails. It takes a great deal of effort to work with passion and yet remain detached from all expectations. Most persons only do desire driven karma. Only spiritual seekers try to do karma Yoga.</p>
<ol> <li><p>I am Brahman.</p> </li> <li><p>I need to find out that I am Brahman. But who is this “I”? “I” refers to Brahman.</p> </li> <li><p>So, Brahman needs to find out that It (Brahman) is Brahman.</p> </li> </ol> <p>This makes no sense.</p>	48873	48867	9	2	48867	9	Question for Advaitins: If I am Brahman, then why do I (who is already Brahman) need to find out that I am Brahman? Who is this “I”?	4	48873	<p>The second point is wrong. 'I' does not refer to Brahman. Here 'I' is the subtle body of Jiva that consists of manas, buddhi, chitta and ahamkara. It is this I that is searching for Brahman.</p> <blockquote> <p>Marwari Devotee: "Who is this 'I' that says, 'O Lord, I am Thy servant'?"</p> <p>Sri Ramakrishna:"This is the <strong>lingasarira or embodied soul. It consists of manas, buddhi, chitta and ahamkara.</strong> Lingasarira is the Atman bound by the eight fetters. Chitta is the 'I-consciousness' that says 'Aha!'"</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Chapter 30, The Master in Various Moods</strong></p> <p>Fetters are shame, hatred, fear, caste, lineage, good conduct, grief, and secretiveness.</p> <p><strong>Some Comments on the nature of Brahman</strong></p> <p>The question has been changed. The first version of the question stated that Brahman is all-knowing. Is it a correct description of Brahman? I would like to state that Brahman is <strong>Pure Consciousness</strong> in the Advaita Vedanta scheme. To interpret the Advaita Brahman as jada is completely missing the point. The concepts of 'all-knowing' or 'not all-knowing' can not possibly apply to Pure Consciousness. Such dualistic concepts can apply only to conscious beings. Narayana of Vishistadvaita Vedanta and Vishnu of Dvaita Vedanta are conscious beings and are all-knowing.</p> <p>It is very difficult to say anything affirmative about Advaita Vedanta Brahman. The description 'Sat-Chid-Ananda' illustrates this point. Brahman may be said to be existence (SAT), be Pure Consciousness (CHID) and be bliss itself (ANAND). The above description is not stating that Brahman exists but what is being claimed is that Brahman is the principle of existence. Similarly Brahman is not a conscious being but consciousness itself and is not blissful but bliss itself.</p> <p>It is this difficulty that has led to describing Brahman negatively. An example of Brahman described negatively is given below.</p> <blockquote> <p>Yajnavalkya said: O Gargi, it is the supreme being that the non-yogins call gross but, in fact, that is eternal and wonderful lord; <strong>one that is not long, not red, that has no head, that has no setting, hence that has a lasting taste, that has no contact, no smell, no juice, no eyes, no ears, neither speech nor mind, no brilliance, no proof [or magnitude], no (worldly) happiness, no name, no race, no death, no age, no ailment; that is nectarine, that is expressed by the word Om, that is immortal, that has neither a predecessor nor a successor, that is endless and non-external. It eats something. It does not eat anything. ..</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Linga Purana II.9.53–54</strong></p>
<p>Edit: This is not a duplicate question because this is a specific question asking for <strong>proof for caste being heridetary</strong>, not just what Vedas have to say about caste. Please understand the difference.</p> <hr /> <p>I recently have been discussing on this forum with a couple of people about the ancient Hindu Vedic society having hereditary caste system.</p> <p>Their claim is that initially in Vedic Hindu society caste was not hereditary and it was based on the characteristics and gunas and professions etc. And it was only stratified to being hereditary since 1000 BC or so by Brahmanical forces to oppress society. They say Smritis are products of this and therefore are not authority on caste being hereditary. And they say <strong>the caste description of Purusha Sukta is only metaphorical of various parts of society functioning in harmony</strong>. This is the "neo Hindu" narrative.</p> <p>But tradition seems to disagree. Tradition holds that caste always has been hereditary. Even though there's a saying, Janmaat jayate Shudraha, the traditional take is that, this is said to impress upon the importance of rightful living and rituals without which a person falls off his caste. <strong>The traditional claim is caste is not completely hereditary but there is a necessary hereditary component for caste.</strong></p> <p>The fact that Hindus have a Gotra system which is hereditary itself is an implicit proof for caste being hereditary. But I'm more interested in references of caste being hereditary in Vedas and Ramayana and Mahabharata as these epics must have happened before 1000 BC where the claim is made by modernizers that caste was made hereditary.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>So my question is what are references and proofs in Vedas and Itihasas (Ramayana and Mahabharata) of caste being hereditary?</strong></p>	49128	49053	3	2	49053	3	Proof of hereditary caste system in Vedas OR Ramayana and Mahabharata	4	49128	<p>Short answer to your question is yes caste is hereditary as per Hindu scriptures whether Veidic or itihasas.</p> <p>I) FROM VEIDIC LITERATURE:</p> <p>Chhandogya Upanishad 5.10.7 - Those whose conduct has been good here will shortly get birth such as a Brahmana (brahmana yonim), a kshatriya, or a vaishya. But those whose conduct has been evil will be born in evil births shortly such as the birth of a dog (shva yonim), or as a pig, or a chandala.</p> <p>The word used is "yonim", and it means birth or womb, and is used to refer to birth as a dog (shva), and pig, and since it's also used along with the names of castes, it must be taken to mean that one is born into those castes just like animals, so it doesn't merely mean being born as a person with Brahmanical qualities. It means being born into the womb (yoni) of a Brahmin, and a person born into such a womb naturally acquires Brahminical qualities due to gene transfer.</p> <p>Maitrayani Samhita 1.4.1 - We know not if we are brahmins or non-Brahmins. ...Therefore, when recounting our gotra-pravaras, say that the devas are our fathers.</p> <p>This verse from the Maitrayani shakha of the Krishna Yajur Veda is referred to in Jaimini's Mimamsa Sutras, and commented on by Shabara swami. The sutra reads:</p> <p>On account of the failings of women, (there can be no certainty regarding one's caste); specially as the son belongs to the progenitor.</p> <p>This sutra is based on the Maitrayani samhita verse. Shabara comments on the sutra as follows:</p> <p>The meaning of the eulogistic passage is that even a non-Brahmana would become a Brahmana by the recounting of his pravaras [meaning a non-Brahmana can claim he is a Brahmana by recounting Brahmanical gotra pravaras, and hence it is necessary for the Brahmana to also recount his pravaras, as one can never be sure of one's Brahmanahood]. It is difficult to know if one is really a Brahmana; - and this is what is figuratively spoken of as 'we do not know'; and the difficulty in knowing it for certain is due to the 'failings of women'.</p> <p>This vedic verse shows that caste is determined by gotra pravaras (ancestral lineages), and hence caste is inherited and based on birth. Before I begin my next point it must be noted that in the Krishna Yajur Veda Taitreya Samhita Khand 2 Prapatakha 10 Anuvak slok 2 states clearly whatever is stated in Manusmriti must be strictly followed.</p> <p>II) FROM SMRITI AND ITIHASAS:</p> <p>The Bhagvad Gita is a part of the Mahabharata Bhisma Parva, in the very first chapter of the Bhagvad Gita in verse 41 Arjun talks about Varnasankar and states they are born when women become immoral (the concept of Varnasankar has been ordained in the Manusmriti Chapter 10 clearly as children born out of union between parents belonging to different castes and here castes have been clearly stated to be Bramhan Kshatriya Vaishya and Shudra). Shri Ramanujacharya while commenting on Bhagvad Gita 18 Chapter verse 41 states clearly that Varna is birth based. It is also stated in Mahabharata Adi Parva Chapter 296 that children born to rishis always take up Varna of their father alone. The most distinct example of caste being hereditary is in the Bhagvad Gita Chapter 9 verse 32 which clearly states those who are born in pap yoni such as the Vaishya and Shudra can be purified through worship of the lord which clearly implies caste or Varna is birth based.</p> <p>Ps: it is my first time that I am writing an answer here hope if someone finds any violation of site rules they shall guide me.</p> <p>JAI VEERBHADRA JAI SHANKARACHARYA</p> <p>Edit: I found someone in the comments section trying to misappropriate the verses of the Vajrasuchika Upanishad to suit their own theories so I am making this edit.</p> <p>There are a total of 9 mantras in the Vajrasuchika Upanishad. Knowledgeable People.</p> <p>The first mantra talks about the introduction of the Upanishad, The Upanishad is described as "qui ज्ञानहीनानां भूषणं ज्ञानचक्षुषाम्" That it is the contamination of the knowledge-less people and ornament of the knowledgeable people. Every student of Vedanta knows that the knower of the Vedas is also ignorant when viewed from the point of view of Brahmavidya. Similarly, in sanskrit terms, the Jnani of all languages except Sanskrit is also ignorant. That is why this upanishad is said to be the ornament of Knowledgeable Ones, others can even distort it, This is already indicated in the first Mantra.</p> <p>In the second mantra, It is said, "Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras are the four varnas In these varnas, the Brahmin is the chief (ब्राह्मक्षत्रियवैष्यशूद्रा.... ब्राह्मण एव ч). Which is described in the Smritis in accordance with to the Vedas (इति वेदवचनानुरूपं स्मृतिभिरप्युक्तम्). The question arises: Who is the Brahmin? Is that an Jeeva? Or is there a body? Or Jaati or Karma or Jnana or Dharmik?</p> <p>Further mantras in the Upanishads: In 6 mantras from 3 to 8, these six mantras say, Jeeva, Deha, Jaati, Jnana, Karma and Dharmik separately and say that the Jeeva is not a Brahmin, the Deha is not a Brahmin, the Jaati is not a Brahmin, Jnana is not a Brahmin, karma is not a Brahmin, Dharmika is not Brahmin. A few examples of given of Rishis who were Animal born. But not at a single place, they did not say that they are not Brahmins, either by combining the six or by combining any two of them. For example, The Screen is not Smartphone, Battery is not Smart Phone, Microphone is not Smartphone, Software is not Microphone, Semi-Conductor is not Smartphone. Similarly, all of them are not Brahmin if put separately.</p> <p>Now let's see the definition of Brahmin mentioned in mantra 9 of this Upanishad:</p> <p>Who is not full of duality of the soul, not even with Jati, Virtue and action, free from all defects. Satya, Jnana, Who always is in आनंद स्वरूप, स्वयं निर्विकल्प । Shruti, Smriti, Purana conclude that he is the Brahmin who is free from defects like lust, anger, hatred, etc., who is grateful, endowed with sham-dum, devoid of emotions like Matsarya, trishna, asha, moha, etc., is the one who keeps the mind completely separate from the faults like dambha, ego, etc. No other Brahmanatva can be proved in any other way. The Upanishads says that the brahmin is the one who is in this Bhava that He is Satchitanand Brahm"</p> <p>The usage of Brahmin here, The word Brahmin is used here for the person in Brahmabhava.</p> <p>It is said that,</p> <p>"वज्रसूच्यां तु ब्रह्मज्ञानमूलकत्वमेव ब्राह्मण्यमुक्तम्। नात्र वर्णव्यवस्थायाः कर्मप्रयोजकं ब्राह्मण्यस्य वा प्रतिपादनम् । अत एव ब्राह्मणस्यैव विचारस्तत्र दृश्यते न क्षत्रियादीनाम्। वर्णविचारे तु तेषामपि विचारेणावश्यम् भवितव्यम्।"</p> <p>The Vajrasuchi talks about Brahmanatva from the point of Brahmagyan. There the Brahmin Varna which is bound to Karma as propounded in the Varna Vyavastha is not talked about. That is why the long description is only about the word Brahmin, not about kshatriyas, etc. If there was a Varna Specific Vaishya, there must have been an idea about Kshatriyas etc.</p> <p>Firstly, if the person in Brahmabhava is called a Brahmin (in context of varna), will the description of the origin of the Brahmin character from the mouth of Virata in the Purushsukta not become false? Is it possible to produce such a Varna by creating a Varna out of the one who has attained Kaivalya?</p> <p>Is it possible through maya to take a birth for the one who has attained kaivalya from the doors of PanchaBhutas? Then the knowledge of the Vedas will prove to be false. If that were to be possible, then entire JnanaKand of Vedas would be falsified. This is not possible, so it is ignorance to consider this adjective used for the one who's in brahmabhava to be a Brahmin (varna Brahmana).</p> <p>If we don't take the Brahmabhava meaning here, The contradiction with Chhandogya 5.10.7 and Brihadaranyaka 1.4 would occur. Only a fool would do that and conclude with contradiction.</p> <p>It must be noted that at starting it is said that brahmins are one varna in four varna and that he is the best. Then further the questioning arises, "Is the living being a Brahmin?" Or is the body a Brahmin? Or is the caste brahmin? Or is knowledge a Brahmin? Or is karma a Brahmin? Or is Dharmik a Brahmin?</p> <p>Then Jati, karma and Dharmik were said not to be Brahmins. In the definition of Brahmin, what is not associated with Jati, virtue and action was called Brahmin. In this condition What would happen to the Vachana of Bhagwan चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागशः।" (गीता 4.13) Guna and Karma is used here. It clearly talks about the creation of four varnas, brahmins, etc., with guna and karma.</p> <p>If you consider this Brahmin word to be a Brahmin (varna) and if you refute the Brahmin (varna) by birth from the fifth mantra, then according to the seventh mantra, the Karmana (by karma) Brahmin (varna) will also be refuted. Then neither Will be one Brahmana by Karma nor Janma. Then How will one interpret it?</p> <p>In such a situation, if this Brahmin is described as a Varna of Varna Vyavastha, it will result in a non pervading defect (³), because the varnaashram, which applies in both the ways of Pravritti and Nivritti, Their parts will only be true in Nivritti Marga, not in Pravritti.</p> <p>If the Brahmagyani can only be of Brahmin varna, why was Vidurji Shudra, Dharmavaidha Antyaj, Janakji, Sri Krishna and Shriram Kshatriya, Tuladhar Vaishya, Why did the Scriptures not call him brahmin varna? Anyone can be Brahmgyani, whether it is a woman or a man, a Brahmin or a Chandal.</p> <p>There are accounts of the pre-birth and rebirth of many Brahmins in the Itihas-Purana, and many Brahmins went to Swarga etc., after death. If Brahm gyan-related Brahmanatva is considered to be a Brahmin of varnaashram, how is rebirth of all of the Brahmagyani who attained advaita bhava in the above way possible? Then consider it opposed to Vedic Gyan Kand and Prasthanatrayi.</p> <p>That is why Clearly, the word Brahmin here, is not of Varna Vyavastha but is Brahmgyan-representative. In fact, this Vajrasuchika Upanishad is a sannyasa upanishad. The tendency is not related to the Pravritti path, it should have a Nivritti meaning, not a Pravritti related.</p>
<p>Who was the incarnation of Laxmi - <strong>RadhaRani</strong> or <strong>Rukmani Devi</strong> ?</p> <p>I have tried to find this on internet but I did not find an answer yet .</p>	49133	49132	5	2	49132	6	Who was incarnation of Laxmi: Radha Rani or Rukmini Devi?	3	49133	<p>Quoting texts from the <a href="https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/10/52/16-17/" rel="noreferrer">Bhagavata Purana</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>"O hero among the Kurus, the Supreme Lord Himself, Govinda, married Bhīṣmaka’s daughter, <strong>Vaidarbhī, who was a direct expansion of the goddess of fortune</strong>. The Lord did this by her desire, and in the process He beat down Śālva and other kings who took Śiśupāla’s side. Indeed, as everyone watched, Śrī Kṛṣṇa took Rukmiṇī just as Garuḍa boldly stole nectar from the demigods."</p> </blockquote> <p>Next quoting from the <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/vishnu-purana-wilson/d/doc115945.html" rel="noreferrer">Vishnu Purana</a>:</p> <p>From both verses it is clear that rukmini is incarnation of goddess lakshmi.</p> <blockquote> <p>"Parāśara proceeded:— Thus, Maitreya, in former times the goddess Śrī conferred these boons upon the king of the gods, being pleased by his adorations; but her first birth was as the daughter of Bhrigu by Khyāti: it was at a subsequent period that she was produced from the sea, at the churning of the ocean by the demons and the gods, to obtain ambrosia[11]. For in like manner as the lord of the world, the god of gods, Janārddana, descends amongst mankind (in various shapes), so does his coadjutrix Śrī. Thus when Hari was born as a dwarf, the son of Aditī, Lakṣmī appeared from a lotus (as Padmā, or Kamalā); when he was born as Rāma, of the race of Bhrigu (or Paraśurāma), she was Dharaṇī; when he was Rāghava (Rāmacandra), she was Sītā; and <strong>when he was Kṛṣṇa, she became Rukminī</strong>. In the other descents of Viṣṇu, she is his associate. If he takes a celestial form, she appears as divine; if a mortal, she becomes a mortal too, transforming her own person agreeably to whatever character it pleases Viṣṇu to put on. Whosoever hears this account of the birth of Lakṣmī, whosoever reads it, shall never lose the goddess Fortune from his dwelling for three generations; and misfortune, the fountain of strife, shall never enter into those houses in which the hymns to Śrī are repeated."</p> </blockquote> <p>And, lastly quoting from the <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/devi-bhagavata-purana/d/doc57314.html" rel="noreferrer">Devi Bhagavata Purana</a>:</p> <blockquote> <ol> <li>Śri Nārāyaṇa said :-- This (Highest) Prakṛti is recognised as five-fold.</li> </ol> <p>When She is engaged in the work of Creation, She appears as :-- (1) Durgā, the Mother of Gaṇeśa, (<strong>2) Rādhā, (3) Laksm</strong>ī, (4) Sarasvatī and (5) Sāvitrī.</p> </blockquote> <p>So From here it is clear that radha devi is different from goddess lakshmi and both radha and lakshmi are among 5 forms of highest prakriti.</p>
<p>I have been reading in many autobiographies and biographies about the preference of cold water for bathing even during harsh winters. So my question is: for the person on the path of spirituality does this have any significance or is it a mere custom/ritual being followed by all yogis?</p> <p>Any references from scriptures would be preferred in the answer.</p>	49213	49212	6	2	49212	5	Why do yogis prefer bathing with cold water?	3	49213	<p>Probably because hot (specially boiled) water isn't considered pure. So, bathing with/in that water will not be purifying.</p> <p>See for example Manu Smriti 2.61:</p> <blockquote> <p>अनुष्णाभिरफेनाभिरद्भिस्तीर्थेन धर्मवित् ।<br> शौचेप्सुः सर्वदाऽचामेदेकान्ते प्रागुदङ्मुखः ॥ ६१ ॥</p> <p>anuṣṇābhiraphenābhiradbhistīrthena dharmavit \|<br> śaucepsuḥ sarvadā'cāmedekānte prāgudaṅmukhaḥ \|\| 61 \|\|</p> <p>One who knows his duties, when desiring cleanliness, should always sip, through the proper receptacle, water which is neither hot nor frothy,—in solitude, with his face towards the North or the East.—(61)</p> </blockquote> <br> <p>Here it is prohibited to perform Achamana using hot water implying that hot water isn't considered pure.</p> <p>The <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc145651.html" rel="noreferrer">commentator Medhatithi</a> says that here prohibition is on boiled water and not water that has naturally turned hot due to climatic condition.</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Hot’ here stands for boiled;</strong> elsewhere we read that the sipping should be done ‘with unboiled water.’ So that the prohibition docs not apply to such water as is naturally hot, or has imbibed the beat of the hot atmosphere.</p> <p>‘Froth’ is meant to include ‘bubbles’ also, as elsewhere we read that ‘the water should be free from froth and bubbles.’</p> <p>The terms ‘through the proper receptacle’ and ‘one who knows his duties’ have been added only for the purpose of filling up the metre.</p> <p>‘Desiring cleanliness’—seeking to attain cleanliness, i.e., purity. The sense is that without the sipping of water he can never be clean.</p> </blockquote> <p>Since during winter getting hot water is not possible without heating/boiling it hence the only option is to bath in the cold water.</p> <p>This does not mean that it's compulsory for everybody to do the same. I have read elsewhere that diseased or old persons (i.e. who are incapable of taking cold water baths) can bath with warm water or just sponging the body with a wet towel will also do.</p> <p>And, it also does not mean that taking bath in water that is naturally hot isn't purifying. This is mentioned in one of the following verses quoted in the book "Dharma Bindu" (hosted at Kamakoti.org):</p> <br> <blockquote> <p><em>Samudra Snaana:</em></p> <p>The general saying is:</p> <p>Ashvattham manda vaaretu Saagaram parvani sprushet,<br> Ashvattha Saagarao sevyou kadaachana/</p> <p>(Ashvattha tree is worthy of touch on Saturdays and so is Samudra on Pournamis; indeed both these are worthy of worship and not to be touched indiscriminately)</p> <p>Bharadwaaja Muni instructs:</p> <p>Krishnaangaara chaturdashyaamyobdhou snaanam samacharet,<br> Tasya janma sahasreshu sarvam paapam pranashyati/<br> Seturnaapekshate kaalam nityam snaanam prashasyate,<br> Nishedhah kaalabhedasya setoranyatra karhichit/</p> <p>(Samudra Snaanas on Tuesdays of Krishna Paksha and Chaturdashis would destroy sins of thousands of previous births. However Setu snaanas could be done without any restrictions of days or times.)</p> <p>Vyasa Maharshi describes:</p> <p>Kurukshetram Gayaam Gangaam Prabhaasam Naimisham tathaa,<br> Tirthenyetaani sarvaani snaanakaale smaredbudhah /<br> Aaapayeva putaah taasaam vahnirvishodhakah,<br> Tasmaatsarveshu kaaleshu ushnaanbhah paavanam smritam/</p> <p>(All the persons of virtue should bathe at Kurukshetra, Gaya, Gangaa, Prabhasa, Naimisha and while so bathing announce the Sacred names of the Places concerned. <strong>While water purifies and is clean, Agni purifies far more and hence hot water baths are stated to be more preferable at all the places and times)</strong></p> </blockquote>
<p>When pujas performed, normally, the officiating priest takes the items (like rice, wheat, grains,...) remaining after the puja or used during the puja. I have seen priests take the grains, some also take the cloths, and others take kalash with coconuts as well. I have also seen where priest doesn't take any unless given by the host.</p> <p>Interested to know what shaastras say about who gets these. We may not have direct reference to pujas; hence I am ok if reference is related to sacrifices where remnant items (like ghee) are mentioned.</p> <p><em>[Edit start]: Answers are coming as "Remnants belong to Rudra". But purohita taking it is general practice; is it the greed of priests resulted in this custom or are there scriptural views? If remnants are prasadam (belongs to Rudra), why not leave that to host? If the host gives it to the priest (as daanam), then it's fair. Otherwise, doesn't it mean priest taking away what may not belong to them. Hence I am looking for answer which explains <strong>whether priest can take this unilaterally or not; whether it's priest's right? Does it only belong to priest or only to host or both have a share of what truly belongs to Rudra?</strong> [Edit end]</em></p> <p>Any additional details, like the items officiating priest is entitled to and which one he isn't (for example: the utensils used; assuming priest can't take gold plates of the householder!), would be good to know as well. Which ones priest can take, which ones the host must give to the priest, which ones remains with host?</p>	50423	49963	5	2	49963	4	Who gets the remnants of homa/sacrifice/puja?	3	50423	<p>Rudra (Shiva) is said to preside over sacrificial remnants, which is known as Ritual Remnant - Ucchiṣṭa (उच्छिष्ट) or śeṣa, or vāstu; and thus, as such he's the one who "metaphysically" takes/gets the remnants of sacrifice.</p> <p>Some scriptural references</p> <h3>1. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam MahāPurāṇa:</h3> <blockquote> <p>ŚB 4.7.56<br><br> <strong>रुद्रं च स्वेन भागेन ह्युपाधावत्समाहित:</strong> ।<br> कर्मणोदवसानेन सोमपानितरानपि ।<br> उदवस्य सहर्त्विग्भि: सस्‍नाववभृथं तत: ॥ ५६ ॥</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>With concentrated mind, he waited upon Rudra, by offering the share due to him (viz. the remnants of the sacrifice)</strong>. By performing the concluding rite called <em>udavasānena</em>, he offered oblations to gods who were eligible to drink Soma and eligible to others. Thus after completely performing the sacrifice, he (Dakṣa), along with the priests (participants in the sacrifice), performed the sacred ablution called <em>avabhṛtha</em>.</p> </blockquote> <p>English Translation by <a href="https://archive.org/details/BhagavataPuranaMotilalEnglish/page/n475/mode/1up?view=theater" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Motilal Banarsidass Publication</a></p> </blockquote> <h3>2. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa</h3> <p>A more concluding and exact reference is found in Śatapathabrāhmaṇa (शतपथब्राह्मण).</p> <p>The basic premise of the story being - Rudra was left behind on the sacrificial site (vāstu) by the other gods who – by means of sacrifice – ascended to heaven. Rudra went after them, and threatened to destroy the gods, and hence, gods decreed thus -</p> <blockquote> <p>Kanda I, adhyaya 7, brahmana 3, <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/satapatha-brahmana-english/d/doc63142.html#note-e-34425" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Verse 3 to 7</a>.</p> <p>तद् वा अग्नय इति क्रियते \| अग्निर् वै स देवस् तस्यै तानि नामानि शर्व इति यथा<br> प्राच्या आचक्षते भव इति यथा बाहीकाः पशूनाम् पती रुद्रो ऽग्निर् इति तान्य् अस्या <br>शान्तान्य् एवेतराणि नामान्य् अग्निर् इत्य् एव शान्ततमं तस्माद् अग्नय इति क्रियते स्विष्टकृट इति \|७\|</p> <blockquote> <ol start="7"> <li>The Adhvaryu accordingly sprinkled the sacrificial dishes in proper succession, and replenished them for the sake of one (additional) portion, and again rendered them fit for use, and cut off one portion for each. <strong>This then is the reason why he (Rudra) is called Vāstavya, for a remainder (vāstu) is that part of the sacrifice which (is left) after the oblations have been made: hence, if sacrificial food is offered to any deity, the Sviṣṭakṛt (Agni, 'the maker of good offering') is afterwards invariably offered a share of it; because the gods invariably gave him a share after themselves.</strong></li> </ol> </blockquote> <p>Translated by Julius Eggeling</p> </blockquote> <p>And, further,</p> <h3>3. Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa</h3> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://%C2%A0http://www.sanskritweb.net/yajurveda/tb-1-07.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa 1.7.8.5</a> (तैत्तिरीयब्राह्मण)</p> <p><strong>उच्छेषणभागो वै रुद्रः</strong> \| भागधेयेनैव रुद्रं निरवदयते ॥ १.७.८.५ ॥</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Rudra’s share is the remnant (i.e. Ucchiṣṭa)</strong>. It is said that Rudra indeed gives the share.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>And finally, since Rudra is the owner of remnants, one has to offer him first, and then only such offerings become Nirmālya (literally dirtless, Pure). Thereafter the officiating priest is allowed to take away the remnants and distribute, further distribute them as prasadam, if any.</p> <h3>4. Skanda MahāPurāṇa</h3> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-skanda-purana/d/doc370758.html#note-t-139348" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chapter 38</a>, Section 2 - Puruṣottama-kṣetra-māhātmya, Book 2 - Vaiṣṇava-khaṇḍa, Skanda Purāṇa (स्कन्दपुराण)</p> <p>भक्त्या लोभात्कौतुकाद्वा क्षुधासंशमनेन वा । आकंठभक्षितं तद्धि पुनाति सकलांहसः ॥ ९ ॥</p> <blockquote> <ol start="9"> <li>Whether due to devotion, or covetousness or out of curiosity or as a means to satisfy hunger, if the Nirmālya is eaten to the full, it dispels all the sins</li> </ol> </blockquote> <p>.....</p> <p>यज्ञशेषं गृहस्थानां भोक्तव्यमिति शास्त्रतः । देवोच्छिष्टं न जग्राह अन्यपाकाभिशंकया ॥ ५७ ॥</p> <blockquote> <ol start="57"> <li><strong>Since there is the injunction in the scriptural texts that the remnants of Yajña should be partaken of by householders,</strong> he did not take the remnants of the offering unto the Lord suspecting that it must have been cooked by another (inferior person).</li> </ol> </blockquote> </blockquote> <hr /> <h2>To conclude -</h2> <p>The remnants of a sacrifice are presided over, and consumed (metaphysically) by Rudra. Having offered them to Rudra, the physical remains become <em>Nirmālya</em>, and fit to be partaken by the presiding priest of the sacrifice.</p>
<p>This is the verse as give in Shiva Puran. Is it true because vedas are against Wife beating</p> <blockquote> <p>The brahmin lady said:</p> <p>...</p> <p>A chaste lady shall never mention her husband’s name. If the husband scolds or rebukes her she shall not abuse him in return. Even when beaten by him she shall remain glad and say “I may even be killed, O lord. Be kind to me.” (Shiva Puran 2.3.54.19.)</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/shiva-purana-english/d/doc226118.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/shiva-purana-english/d/doc226118.html</a></p>	50017	50011	2	2	50011	2	Does Shiva Puran support Wife beating?	3	50017	<p>Maybe there is some wrong translation because as per <a href="https://archive.org/details/SHIVPURANHINDI/page/n285/mode/2up?view=theater" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gita press translation</a></p> <blockquote> <p>A chaste woman shouldn't take her husband's name . Even after husband speaks harsh words , wife shouldn't say harsh words in return. When her husband calls her , she should leave all housework and immediately go to him and lovingly ask him with bowed head and folded hands .....</p> </blockquote> <p>By the way <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/19FEm3TP1Ulha3DtZvjR5Kbi93hRIETsl/view" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a> is another link for pdf of Gita press translation , the earlier link is not that clear . You can go to page 342 of this new link I shared</p>

Subsets and Splits