Vedic culture and society

[Project Dharma]

^^^ So this is more inline with monism.

Panentheism to be precise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

 

[IndianHawk]

@IndianHawk @fyodor

While we all agree on the basic premise of vedanta, that brahman is an all pervading reality, unblemished by attributes. However this leaves the query of @gpawar unanswered.

Is the nirguna brahman the creator God? , in the classical sense of theism. After all even the vedantins concede that the brahman allows multiples of phenomenon to exist due to agnana(ignorance). Would this allow to us classify brahman as a theistic and vedanta as theism.

This is essentially a mistake. We are trying to tie it into an identity or a philosophy. While Vedanta / bramhan is basically "shunya "
That is no identity no philosophy no doctrine .

As Yagyavalyak rishi said " that what is bramhan can not be known from intellect. It can only be known through experience."

That's why wise sages never tried to define it as that would be stupid. They only expressed certain observations here and there.

Is it theist or atheist or anything else is irrelevant to one who actually wants to know bramhan.

Academically we can debate and reach conclusion but that would be disingenuous as intellect simply is not the tool to describe bramhan and that is all we have in our present state.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[S.A.T.A]

This is essentially a mistake. We are trying to tie it into an identity or a philosophy. While Vedanta / bramhan is basically "shunya "
That is no identity no philosophy no doctrine .

As Yagyavalyak rishi said " that what is bramhan can not be known from intellect. It can only be known through experience."

That's why wise sages never tried to define it as that would be stupid. They only expressed certain observations here and there.

Is it theist or atheist or anything else is irrelevant to one who actually wants to know bramhan.

Academically we can debate and reach conclusion but that would be disingenuous as intellect simply is not the tool to describe bramhan and that is all we have in our present state.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

da
Well it might be an academic exercise, but still an essential one. Sunyatavada of great buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, envisioned realization as a state of emptiness. Is that how vedanta describes realization. Realization, as per upanishad, is realization of duality as ignorance and once this veil of Ignorance is lifted, there is only brahman left. Yet brahman is not emptiness. If it was otherwise they would have no reason call it Atman or brahman. In fact one of the basic premise of the buddhist Sunyatavada is its antagonist to the vedic brahmavada/Atmavada..... So question still remains, is Brahman/Atman a self existing creation.

 

[garg_bharat]

Arun Kumar: You have said that a yogi can listen and see things happening far. (Patanjal yog-darshanam, page number 314, sutra 2/43). Do you mean to say a yogi can hear a conversation which a normal person can not hear or see? How far one mile 2 mile or more?
Swami Ramswarup: Yes please such Yogi can listen and see up to a long distance i.e., thousands of miles. However, as
said in the sutra it is possible only when five senses, five perceptions, mind and intellect are purified by hard practice of ashtang Yog and Tap. Tap means, “SHRTUM TAPAH, SHANTAM TAPAH, DAM TAPAH, …….” As mentioned and clarified in sutra 2/11 page 157 of the comments on Patanjal Yog Darshan written by me.

 

[garg_bharat]

Arun Kumar: I read this on one arya samaj web site that a disciple of Maharishi Dayanand saw him sitting on the
surface of water in Udaypur. Can a yogi attain such powers so that he can walk on water or sit in fire or sleep on ice etc. No yogi including you wants to display the power of yoga. But not everybody can be a yogi and most of the people believe only when they see things happening in front of their eyes. Why do all the yogi’s keep yoga a secret? Yajurved (26/2) says that everyone has right to study the Veda. But knowledge can not be gained until it is given by somebody. So it is the responsibility of the yogis to teach Vedas to the public and do the good for the society. Why do most of the yogis prefer to stay in the jungle and not come to the public and spread the truth? This question might sound stupid but I just want to
know how many true Yogies are there in India? Do you know any body else who you believe could be a true Yogi?
Swami Ramswarup: Yes please, after doing hard practice of learning Vedas and ashtang yoga a Yogi attains eight Ridhis and siddhis as also enlightened in Yajurveda mantra 7/4. So one Ridhi is ANIMA i.e., to make the body most light weighted and can sit on water. I am sure about Swami Dayanand but it is sure the if he had attained this Ridhi then he could also do so. But Yogi can never sit on fire with anybody (suksham or sthool) Atharvaveda 1/1/ 2,3,4 clarifies that if aspirant invites a Yogi or Yogi asks the followers to come to him then Yogi (learned of Vedas) starts giving knowledge of Vedas and yoga otherwise not. i.e., in some other mantras of the Vedas it is mentioned that the knowledge is only given to an aspirant who so desires. On this point you can say it is secret because if the people are not desirous of gaining knowledge on the other hand a learned person is forcefully trying to give or to teach the knowledge then naturally it all will go in vain. So question is only of the aspirant who is deserving otherwise all yogis are having polite heart. People may believe
things which they see before their eyes, but actually this has no concern with the nature of perfect Yogi. In Bhagwat Geeta shlok 2/55 Shri Krishna gives answer to Arjuna that when a Yogi has controlled all his senses etc., and has killed his desires and has become satisfied with the source of soul only then he is called that his mind is stable in Brahma. So actually a Yogi has no desire but when somebody comes to him with desire then he serves the people with knowledge.
This site of Vedmandir.com was created by my loving disciple Kapil, he is computer Engineer and several times he requested to open this site by him. Once I agreed and now my services are available for all. I feel that I have never asked anybody to become my disciple. But when people come then I cannot deny. Yet I have refused thousands of people. I always say I will preach but I am not interested to make disciples. So what you will say in this matter for which I am also astonished. In Orlando the chairman of Hindu University of America tried his level best with others to make my stay even for a day but I preached for some hours and in spite of several polite gentle requests of all of them I could not stay there. And
immediately flew to New York and next day to India whereas my disciples in New York were Also left weeping. So this action is not of mine but natural. People can blame me but it will always remain natural and herein India also such instances are happening. But whenever a real aspirant comes to me then I cannot avoid him. So question is only of deserving aspirant. So this philosophy is not secret please.

It is the responsibility of learned of Vedas to give knowledge to all concerned but at the same time people must also be desirous. In the present time situation is not as was in ancient times i.e., in Satyug, Treta, Dwapur, i.e., about five thousand years back. Vedas say that actually it is the responsibility of king spread the knowledge of Vedas while arranging
learned of Vedas and a Gurukul (universities etc.) the ancient kings by order used to send the people to universities and in turn people became learned whereas nowadays on the matter of faith (spiritualism) everybody is free to adopt any religion and nobody can object. Yes some society may be organized who can try their level best like the king of ancient time to make arrangements to spread the knowledge of Vedas by learned persons. Jungle is a lonely place and it is only meant to do practice of ashtang yoga and study of Vedas etc. When the same is completed then jungle has no relevance to live in but due to bent of mind of Yogi (their nature) he may prefer to live in jungle. In Chhandogya Upanishad it is mentioned the Rakya Muni was a Yogi. King Janshruti came to know about Rakya Muni, he ordered his soldiers to locate the Muni. All failed in spite of their best efforts. King ordered them to go to jungle/lonely place. When soldiers were searching him in secluded places the Muni was found sitting on sand alone. It is a long story which can’t be mentioned here but in short Rakya Muni refused a lot, however, the king persuaded him with his services to bring the Muni from his jungle to his palace to
preach the Vedas and there so many such examples of such respected kings in our ancient texts. So any Yogi can be brought in university or in any place to preach if he is persuaded with gentle thoughts and requests. I have spent most of the time in dense jungles of Rishikesh (India) where in a cave Baba Bankhandi Maharaj ji used to live. He was a Yogi but now he is
not alive. No more Yogi I know who have attained Samadhi please. There may be but I do not know because as per Yog shastra sutra 1/2 the meaning of Yog is Samadhi, i.e., realization of God and not teaching of yoga asan etc. and Samadhi is attained only after practicing ashtang yoga studying Vedas and doing yajna etc., which are unluckily being ignored nowadays.

Sagar Anmalla: Aum Shamno Mitra Sham Varunaha Shamno Bhavatvaryama Shamna Indro Bruhaspatih Shamno Vishnu Rurukramaha
Namo Brahmane Namaste Vaayo Tvameva Pratyaksham Brahmaasi Tvaameva Pratyaksham Brahma Vadisyaami Rutam Vadisyaami Tanmaamavatu Tad Vaktaaramavatu Avatu Maam Aum Shanti Shanti Shantihi. Its meaning is written as: May the sun God Mitra and other Vedic Gods – Varuna, Aryamaa, Indra, Brihaspati and the all pervading Maha Vishnu and all the Devatas shower their
Blessings upon us. Salutations to Brahma. Salutations to Vaayu. You are the personfication of Brahma. I shall proclaim thee as Brahma. I shall always abide by Dharma (righteousness). I shall always speak the truth. May that protect us all. Aum Peace, peace, peace. swamiji these is a copy paste from a website does this mantra is in Vedas and if it is then bhagwan baba who is uttering this mantra is talking about vishnu and different Gods to shower blessings. Maybe he beleives that there exists diffferent Gods. Please correct me.
Swami Ramswarup: You have quoted shlok from Tetiriyo Upanishad shiksha walli 1/1 and its correct meaning is — SHANO = Sham+ NHAH i.e., Sham means who gives peace and pleasure, Naha means for us, MITRAH means God who gives all merriment to all concern, URUKRAMAH means Almighty i.e., God. so meaning is——- May Almighty God , the God (MITRAH) who gives peace pleasure to all. VARUNAH = supreme i.e., God. SHAM = may God give peace and pleasure to us. ARYAMA= Supreme Judge i.e., God, May give peace and pleasure to us. BRIHASPATI (BRIHAD+PATI) brihad means the biggest Vedas, pati means master i.e., God, May God give peace and pleasure to us. INDRAH = who gives wealth/fortune, i.e., God may give us peace and pleasure to us. VISHNUHU= omnipresent i.e., God. BHAWTU = May. So meaning is OMNIPRESENT God May bless us. The above mantras also come in Rigveda mantra 1/90/9 therefore, sense of this mantra is — there is none except God and a learned spiritual master who can give peace and other above quoted blessings to human beings. Other meaning—– NAMAHA BRAHMANA= OUR NAMASTE, Adore and respect to God. (Brahma means God). VAYO = God who is base of universe, TWAM = you (God), EVA= only, PRATAKSHAM = openly/direct BRAHMA = God ASI is i.e., God, you are only one Almighty God. TWAM = you EVA = are PRATAKSHAM = direct
BRAHAM= God AVADISHAM = is said i.e., I have said only you as Supreme God. RITAM AVADISHAM = I have said divine truth, SATYAM AVADISHAM —- I have told eternal truth, TAT MAM AVEET= the God has protected me. TAT VAKTARM AVEET = the spiritual Acharya protected me. AVEET MAM= protected me. AVEET VAKTARAM = protected the preacher. This requires still lot of description, which cannot be described here being lengthy. For example Vishnu word is made from Dhatu Vishlri Vyapatau. Vyapatau means omnipresent i.e., God who is everywhere. So all names mentioned in mantra/shlok like Varun, Indra etc., according to qualities are related to one God, who creates, nurses and destroy the universe, Who is omnipresent, Almighty, omniscient, formless, beyond calculation and beyond imagination and He is only adorable God and is realized in the heart of a Yogi who studied Vedas and did hard practice of ashtang yoga. The above meaning is based on Sanskrit grammar and eternal Vedic philosophy please, where as pasted meaning is against the Vedas because there is only one God and no the second God. Yajurveda says in mantra 27/36 that God is one and equivalent to God neither, other has been born nor will be born.

 

[garg_bharat]

Anil Kumar Rana: In Ramayan It is shown that King Dashrath went to help Indra. Maghnath captured Indra. In Mahabartha,
it is said ARJUN went to SWARG LOK to learn and get weapons. How one can go to Haven (swarglok) with Sthul body. It is said that all Devatas have sukhasm sarira and cannot be seen with physical eyes. I don’t understand how above mentioned people went to SWARG LOK. There are so many other stories also, which reveal some time ASUR won the swarg lok and throne away the king INDRA of swarg and then BISHNU helped the DEVETAS. Is it true?

Swami Ramswarup: There are so many meanings of one word in Vedas and epic. For example-Rigveda mantra 1/1/1 it is said
“AGNIM EEDE ….. RATNAM DHATAMAM” so here Agni means Ag-Agrini i.e., the Supreme power who was before creation, i.e., God (eternal) was first. Then he creates universe and is only adorable but on the other hand, the worldly meaning of agnim is fire which is not applicable here according to rest of the mantra. So meaning is found according to the matter/devta of the mantra etc. For example in Sanskrit Sendhav means salt and horse also. When a master of the house is asking for sendhav when he is taking food then sendhav means salt and when he is prepared in a dress to ride horse then sendhav means horse. So here Indra means a warrior alive man who has controlled his all indriyan i.e., five senses, five perceptions, mind and intellect. There is no any existence of swarg lok in space everything is here on earth according to good or bad deeds to face. So the meaning of dev (devta) in Vedas is – who is a philosopher of Vedas and other meaning pertains to alive mother, father, atithi, Acharya and God i.e., He is dev (devta) who gives good to us. Asur means who does sins and who does deeds against the Vedas and holy books as also mentioned in Yajurveda mantra 40/3. I have written the meaning of Vishnu also in one of the above mentioned question please read web site.

 

[garg_bharat]

Rahul: You told me that in the Vedas there is only three lokas. No narak or swarg exist.. then you said that they are here in the earth itself. Is this mentioned in the Vedas? Can you please quote the line? I have read in some places that there are 14 lokas (atal, vital, sutal … below the earth and bhur bhuvar, swarg, maha, jana.. above). I agree that it is wrong according to Vedas… then where is it mentioned that there are 14 lokas? Is it in any purana?

Swami Ramswarup: Like in other Vedas, in Yajurveda mantra 32/6, three lokas have been mentioned i.e., Dyulok (planets emitting light), Prithvilok ( earth) and Antrikshlok (space).

As regards Bhuhu, Bhuvaha, Swaha etc., it is mentioned in Tetiriyo Upnishad shiksha valli and not in Vedas. So Bhuhu means breathing i.e., God who is loving like breaths. Bhuvaha means the God who kills the sorrows/sadness. Swaha means God who has unlimited merriment, Mahaha means God who is Almighty. Janaha means the God who creates the universe. Tapaha i.e., God who gives punishment to the sinners and Satyam means God who is eternal unchangeable, unbreakable etc. So in this Upanishad, Mahaha has also been told as Aditya lok (Surya lok i.e., sun) which gives light to others. This Aditya lok already comes within Dyulok cited above.

 

[IndianHawk]

da
Well it might be an academic exercise, but still an essential one. Sunyatavada of great buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, envisioned realization as a state of emptiness. Is that how vedanta describes realization. Realization, as per upanishad, is realization of duality as ignorance and once this veil of Ignorance is lifted, there is only brahman left. Yet brahman is not emptiness. If it was otherwise they would have no reason call it Atman or brahman. In fact one of the basic premise of the buddhist Sunyatavada is its antagonist to the vedic brahmavada/Atmavada..... So question still remains, is Brahman/Atman a self existing creation.

Logical conclusion is that bramhan is self existing. As bramhan will still exist even as all manifestation of bramhan are destroyed.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[S.A.T.A]

Logical conclusion is that bramhan is self existing. As bramhan will still exist even as all manifestation of bramhan are destroyed.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

You are correct and this is the point where buddhist philosophy confounds me. Philosophically speaking, even for ignorance to emerge, it cannot do so from a epistemological vaccum(like the buddhist sunyata). Emptiness cannot beget anything. What are your thoughts on Sankara's Mayavada, which he uses to explain the tendency latent in the Brahman to manifest duality...

 

[garg_bharat]

धर्म एव हतो हन्ति धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः । तस्माद्धर्मो न हन्तव्यो मा नो धर्मो हतोऽवधीत्|

‘‘जो पुरूष धर्म का नाश करता है, उसी का नाश धर्म कर देता है, और जो धर्म की रक्षा करता है, उसकी धर्म भी रक्षा करता है । इसलिए मारा हुआ धर्म कभी हमको न मार डाले, इस भय से धर्म का हनन अर्थात् त्याग कभी न करना चाहिए ।’’

 

[garg_bharat]

Wonderful Vedic tradition of South India.

 

[garg_bharat]

War creates a large number of widows. A very important social issue is that what happens to these widows and to the children of martyrs.

Rupa: I have come across this article Women in Vedas on an anti-Hindu site. On various sites where it is used to defame Hinduism or to compare the status of women in Vedas with other religion. When ever we speak of Vedas, our holy scriptures, this articles given is hurled against us. I kindly request you to clarify this confusion. Some of the words used are very deregatory but I have to present this to a learned person like you so it can help to remove doubts from many Hindus mind. So many can be educated and enlightened by your words. Thank You very much! I will be eagerly waiting for your reply.

Rishi: My blessings to you. I am also sorry such painful heart feelings/statements are being read. However, I have clarified the real meaning of Ved mantras in my several previous answers. Some of the answers are also appended below please.

Atharvaveda mantra 14/2/60:
The said Atharvaveda mantra has reference to context with previous number mantra i.e., 14/2/59

“YADIYAM DUHITA TAV VIKESHYRUDAD GRIHE RODEN KRINNVATYAGHAM
AGNISHTVA TASMADENSAHA SAVITA CHA PRAMUNCHTAAM.” (14/2/60)

(YADI) if (IDAM) this (TAV) your (DUHITA) daughter (VIKESHI) with open hair (RODEIN) while weeping (ADHAM) with sorrows (KRINNVATI) doing (GRIHE) in house (ARUDAT) weeps then(AGNIHI) the glorious, learned person of the house/acharya (CHA) and (SAVITA) along with the faith in the Almighty God (TVA) you (TASMAT) with the (AINESAHA) sorrows (PRA) completely (MUNCHTAAM) liberate/release/free.

Meaning: Oh Family holder! If your daughter while weeping with open hair and doing/producing sorrows weeps in her house then the learned, head of the family/acharya alongwith the faith in God should release you from the said sorrows, i.e., one should take the shelter of the learned acharya to liberate/free oneself from sorrows.

Atharvaveda mantra 20/96/15:
YASTVA BHRAATA PATIRBHOOTVA JAARO BHOOTVA NIPADYATE.
PRAJAM YASTE JINGHASATI TAMITO NASHYAMASI.

Oh Woman! (YAH) anyone who (JAARAH) immoral (BHRAATA) brother (BHOOTVA) becoming or (BHOOTVA) becoming (PATIHI) husband (NIPADYATE) come (TVA) to you or (YAH) who so ever cruel person (JINGHASATI) wants to kill (TE) your (PRAJAM) children (TAM) he (NASHYAMASI) should be destroyed (ITAHA) from here.

Meaning: Oh Woman! If any brother or husband becoming immoral come to you or any cruel person wants to kill your children, he –they must be destroyed from here i.e., from your house.

Rigveda mantra 10/18/8:
UDEERSHVA NARYABHI JEEVLOKAM GATASUMETAMUPA SHESH EHI.
HASTGRABHASYA DIDHISHOSTAVEDAM PATYURJANITVAMABHI SAM BABHOOTHA.

(NARI) Oh Widow! You (ETAM) this (GATASUM) leaving the dead (JEEVLOKAM)alive husband (ABHYEHI) get.
Meaning: – If a widow is able to get child then she must leave the dead and get.

(HASTAGRABHASYA) husband you got your hand in marriage (DIDHISHOHO PATYUHU TAV IDAM JANITVAM UDEERSHVA) who for the dead husband and for yourself produce (ABHI SAMBABHOOTH) so by this procedure become happy.

Meaning: You produce the children for your departed husband and yourself and thus become happy.

The idea of the mantra is that the widow can produce the children from another person. She can thus retain in her departed husband’s house and the children who take birth would get the name of her departed husband.

Rigveda mantra 10/18/7:

“IMA NARIRVIDHWAHA SUPATNIRAANJANEIN SARPISHA SAM VISHANTU.
ANASHRAVOANAMEEVAHA SURATNA AA ROHANTU JANYO YONIMAGREY.”

(IMAHA) those (AVIDHWAHA) who are not widows (SUPATNI NARI) have their husband and are good charactered women (AANJANEIN SARPISHA SAMVISHANTU) use the water to wash the eyes, mouth and becoming (ANASHRAVAHA ANAMEEVAHA SURATNAHA JANYAHA AGREY YONIM AA ROHANTU) without tears and the girls also becoming without tears i.e., without weeping must already come back to their houses.

Idea: Those widows and the girls who were accompanied with the dead bodies to the final resting place must return first to their house after washing their eyes and mouth and becoming tearless i.e., they must not weep.

Rigveda mantra 5/47/6:

Pertains to the adorable women and men who by maintaining the celibacy first attain the knowledge (worldly and spiritual) and then enter married life and get the best children. Thereafter, they educate the children well in worldly and spiritual fields.So, how Vedas can say that fifty slave girls be donated to Trasdasyu, etc. In the mantra (MATRAHA) word has also been used, the meaning of which is adorable mother who gives birth to the learned children.

Atharvaveda mantra 6/11/3:

This mantra relates to women. (PRAJAPATIHI) Protector of public (ANUMATIHI) who is follower of the thought of husband. (SEENIVALI) who has the plenty of food grains and the best use there of (ACHEEKLRIPT) capable/powerful.

Idea is that the woman who has the said quality, Prajapati, Anumati and Seenivali becomes self-sufficient, capable, powerful to carry out moral duties and to give birth to the intelligent babies.
(STRAISHUYAM) the said woman for giving birth to baby and (ANYATR) keeping the baby at different places, (U) i.e., (Ukar word of hindi devnagari) definitely (IHA) here i.e., in this world (PUMANSAM DADHAT) gives birth to brave male baby.

Meaning/Idea of the mantra: It has been eternal tendency in the world to obtain brave male babies for the protection of the nation. Yajurveda mantra 22/22 too states to get male member also in the shape of Brahmin who knows Vedas and yoga philosophy to educate the nation well, Kshatriya to protect the nation well and the vaishya/Mahajan to have control and good distribution of every needful item of the household i.e., their business must suits the nation. Similarly in the mantra, it is stated that brave women must be there to help their husbands. The said Yajurveda mantra states that PURANDHIHI YOSHA i.e., the learned women must also take birth in the nation who are capable to hold public public positions well in the nation. The society must be learned to think deeply on the above quoted Atharvaveda mantra also that who gives birth to brave sons. Definitely a woman having qualities quoted in the mantra gives birth and then only nation is protected well. So we should never have any bad thought against girl/woman. Otherwise it would be a great sin and God punishes.

The idea of Rigveda mantra 8/33/17 does not indicate that the mind of a lady is unintelligent, brooks no discipline etc. But the idea of the said mantra is that if a learned husband realises that the thoughts of his wife are not compatible with him then as per next mantra the responsibility of the learned husband is more than the lady to cooperate with his wife. Actually, in mantra 8/33/17 it is pointed out that if the wife in any case is not capable to meet with the requirements of her learned husband then next mantra quoted above states that to maintain compatibility, the responsibility lies on the husband. In no case, the wife has been declared unintelligent in Vedas. On the contrary, in next Rigveda mantra 8/33/19 it is stated:
“ISTREE HI BRAHMA BABHOOVITH”
i.e., the woman, in the house of her husband, is placed at the status of Brahma. Here, it shall not be out of place mention to that in Atharvaveda God states that he who steels away a small portion of any ved mantra, he is punished. I mean to say, now it is time to channelize India’s concentration towards study of four Vedas completely and not in pieces. At one stage, Vedas state that Vedas are afraid of the man/woman who do not study the Vedas completely. As a result, they misinterpret Vedas. Our country was called as “VISHWAGURU” i.e., spiritual master of entire world, based on Vedas’ knowledge only.

Rigveda mantra 10/95/15:
(PURURAVAHA) He who gives order to number of army troops under him i.e., commander of army/king (Ma) not (MRITAHA) meet with death.
Meaning/Idea: Oh King! Do not meet with death uselessly. (MA) not (PRA PAPTAHA) fall in a pit.
Meaning/Idea: Do not meet with downfall in your life. (VRIKASAHA) wolves (MA) not (TVA) you (ASHEEVASAHA) unauspicious/not beneficial (U KSHANN) definitely eat away.
Meaning/Idea: Oh king! The unauspicious wolves may not definitely eat you away. (STRAINNANI) with regards to lady (SAKHYANI) friendly connection i.e., worldly love (NA VAI) never (SANTI) permanently established i.e., are not auspicious.

Meaning/idea: Relations with lady based on worldly love only are never established permanently i.e., are never auspicious. (ETA) the said relations (HRIDYANI) are like a cruel heart (SALA VRIKANNAM) of wolves who attack forcefully.

Idea: The idea of the mantra is that when a man becomes sensuous and makes contact with several ladies or makes several sexual contacts with his wife even then he loses his mental as well as physical power and meets with early death uselessly. Even in some cases, he commits suicide. Some people go to the jungles where they commit suicide and their body flesh is eaten away by wild animals like wolves etc. So, the mantra warns against the sexual attachment with ladies and maintains Brahamcharya stage in family life like several Rishi-Munis, Shri Ram, Shri Krishna Maharaj etc. Mahabharat clearly states that Satyawati had two sons- Chitrangad and Vichitraveerya. One of his son was actually sensuous who met with early death due to fatal diseases. In the present world also, There are several cases of such instances. God does not allow the lady to be seen with bad intention mainly sexual. Physical charms never make everlasting love/relations. It is only a
love which based on soul and the said love is everlasting. The sexual relation is like an attack of cruel wolves who eat the flesh of his hunt cruelly and immediately. Thus, the uncontrolled sexual relation with lady/ladies attack the body of man to eat it badly and immediately. One should have a Vedic target of family life to increase pure love and to get only children and not mere sexual pleasure.

The fundamental law of Vedas can never be changed wherein a woman has not been declared as a subject matter of insult, ridicule or untouchability unless declared characterless.

Vedas devolve equal rights on males and females and do not even allow generation of hatred among living beings, then what to talk about females who have been awarded the greatest title of “Brahma” vide Rigveda mantra 8/33/19 Brahma means he who creates the living beings and the women too. Vedas also state “MATA NIRMATRI BHAVATI i.e., she alone is the power who builds the future of her children.”

Vedas only prohibit to have contact with females in the days of monthly problems with the sole aim of maintaining purity along with giving long life to husband vide Manusmriti shloka 4/40-42.

It is also pertinent to mention here that whenever any granth or holy book is studied then at that time fundamentals of Vedas should be kept in mind and if any contradiction is seen between Vedas and those granths then such contradictory views of other granths will have to condemned and ignored immediately, based on Yog Shastra Sutra 1/7 and Sankhya Shastra Sutra 1/66 and Atharvaveda mantra 7/105/1.

There may be contradictions in views stated in a granth other than Vedas but You will never find any contradictory mantras in Vedas. I mean to say that there are no antagonistic views in Vedas where at one place it is stated that God is everywhere then it can not be stated in some other mantra that God resides in one place.

Similarly, when Vedas have stated that female enjoys equal rights viz-a viz man than how Vedas can contradict the said fundamental?

 

[garg_bharat]

Veda clearly allows remarriage of widow as well as retaining of deceased man's property by the widow.

Vedic system is the most efficient social system in which peace and harmony prevails.

 

[garg_bharat]

It is not easy to exhort people to learn Veda. Most people run away in Kaliyuga at the mere mention of Veda.

Again thanks to people on this forum for support.

 

[ezsasa]

Incase it has not been posted before...

=====

IIT Kanpur has develped a website on our treasures of Vedas, Shahstras etc. Finally someone from today's science & technology field, is digging into what has already been done many many years ago.

Check it out: gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in

 

[IndianHawk]

You are correct and this is the point where buddhist philosophy confounds me. Philosophically speaking, even for ignorance to emerge, it cannot do so from a epistemological vaccum(like the buddhist sunyata). Emptiness cannot beget anything. What are your thoughts on Sankara's Mayavada, which he uses to explain the tendency latent in the Brahman to manifest duality...

Shankaracharya mayavada is acknowledgement of human stupidity. Maya is dominant because of our ignorance / agyan .

Ignorance is rooted in being limited by false identities ( national , philosophical , religious , gender all are Identity coming from outside).

That is why Shankar wrote nirvana shatakam.
And says I'm nothing but shiva. Shiva has no identity and hence no philosophy only reality.

As j Krishnamurti says accept nothing from outside find light within your own self.

That is same to what Buddha said be a light to your own self. And same is Shankaracharyas gyaan which comes from within.

Shunyata is not exactly zero but a state of rejecting everything outside of oneself so that there is no identity , no philosophy and then one is established into one's original being. That being is intelligent and is enlightened.
That is the light within which dispels all darkness.

Atleast that is what the theory of it is.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[S.A.T.A]

Shankaracharya mayavada is acknowledgement of human stupidity. Maya is dominant because of our ignorance / agyan .

Ignorance is rooted in being limited by false identities ( national , philosophical , religious , gender all are Identity coming from outside).

That is why Shankar wrote nirvana shatakam.
And says I'm nothing but shiva. Shiva has no identity and hence no philosophy only reality.

As j Krishnamurti says accept nothing from outside find light within your own self.

That is same to what Buddha said be a light to your own self. And same is Shankaracharyas gyaan which comes from within.

Shunyata is not exactly zero but a state of rejecting everything outside of oneself so that there is no identity , no philosophy and then one is established into one's original being. That being is intelligent and is enlightened.
That is the light within which dispels all darkness.

Atleast that is what the theory of it is.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

@IndianHawk

Philosophically speaking Advaita attributes Agyana on the 'Brahman'. Since you and I exist due to the Agyana manifesting in the Brahman. The key question is whether Agyana is an inherent, but latent, attribute of the Brahman. Since Advaita claims Brahman is Nirguna (without attribute) then we have assume Brahman gives rise to Agyana, thus making it a creative force.

Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna does seem to imply sunyata as emptiness, because you must understand that this is nothing but expanding on Buddha's espousing of the 'Anatavada'. 'Anata' should be read as without Atma, as in the upanishadic Atman. Since Atman is considered by upanishad to be the only all pervading reality, Anata/sunyata should be considered as emptiness.

 

[IndianHawk]

@IndianHawk

Philosophically speaking Advaita attributes Agyana on the 'Brahman'. Since you and I exist due to the Agyana manifesting in the Brahman. The key question is whether Agyana is an inherent, but latent, attribute of the Brahman. Since Advaita claims Brahman is Nirguna (without attribute) then we have assume Brahman gives rise to Agyana, thus making it a creative force.

Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna does seem to imply sunyata as emptiness, because you must understand that this is nothing but expanding on Buddha's espousing of the 'Anatavada'. 'Anata' should be read as without Atma, as in the upanishadic Atman. Since Atman is considered by upanishad to be the only all pervading reality, Anata/sunyata should be considered as emptiness.

Manifestation itself might not be agyan . Agyan is the division we see in this world. That is why Krishna says" samatvam yoga uchayate."
Being established in equinomity is yoga.
Once the division is gone agyan is gone but we might still exist.

Yogis have known to hold and leave physical body at will.

Buddhist shunyata may be an stage of complete dissolution. So nothing individual exists anymore. But what it could mean for somebody still alive? J Krishnamurti says "energy is emptiness." In that sense emptiness is having no agenda , no conflict and such a man (a yogi ) has then tremendous energy which he uses for selfless action ( what Krishna called for in Gita).

Atman and bramhan are one and same and logically shunyata must be the same.

Shankaracharya proclaimed we are bramhan / aatman and so we are emptiness ourselves.
But we don't realise it because of agyan .

Now why are we agyani or why do we believe in false identity is a mystery to me .

Sadhguru says the problem is that we believe when we don't know? So we must stop believing everything unless it a living real truth for us.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[jadoogar]

^^ I just gave u a reason why dowry started&still practiced if u don't want to agree leave it.


1.Puja/worship doesn't mean it must be done to ONE GOD. In Hindu custom 'puja' is just recognition/respect towards non/living.
Ex:These are not god's.

IF u think/see/know Hanuman u imagine a picture like this in most temples (in south don't know about north)... Muscular,loyal,hard working&etc.Devotee don't know/cant express it but sub-consciously they all aware of this idol characteristics.

जय बजरंगबली। Pranam (I cannot find a graphic with folded hands in DFI software)

I think that many of the fabulous acts of bravery that have been exhibted by many in the Indian armed forces begin with a salutation to Shri Hanuman

 

[S.A.T.A]

Manifestation itself might not be agyan . Agyan is the division we see in this world. That is why Krishna says" samatvam yoga uchayate."
Being established in equinomity is yoga.
Once the division is gone agyan is gone but we might still exist.

Yogis have known to hold and leave physical body at will.

Buddhist shunyata may be an stage of complete dissolution. So nothing individual exists anymore. But what it could mean for somebody still alive? J Krishnamurti says "energy is emptiness." In that sense emptiness is having no agenda , no conflict and such a man (a yogi ) has then tremendous energy which he uses for selfless action ( what Krishna called for in Gita).

Atman and bramhan are one and same and logically shunyata must be the same.

Shankaracharya proclaimed we are bramhan / aatman and so we are emptiness ourselves.
But we don't realise it because of agyan .

Now why are we agyani or why do we believe in false identity is a mystery to me .

Sadhguru says the problem is that we believe when we don't know? So we must stop believing everything unless it a living real truth for us.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Of course manifestation is not 'Agyan' (ignorance), manifestation is the result of "Brahman" experiencing the 'Agyan'. Manifestation and divisions are the same, they are the result of Ignorance rising in the Brahman. According to Advaitins, duality /manifestations of the otherwise singular Brahman is unreal and what is unreal cannot go away (because it really doesn't exist). What needs to go away, according to Advaita, is ignorance. Since it's ignorance that causes singular to become duality, the absence of ignorance automatically ceases duality.

Your point as to why we are Agyani or experience duality, is pertinent. Depending on which school of thought you pose this question, your question may even be termed as misdirected. The school of Advaita may say your query is misdirected, because we (the duality) are not experiencing the Agyan(ignorance) but the Brahman is. We(duality) are just the result of this experience of ignorance of the Brahman. Advaita does not adequately address the cause of existence of ignorance (Agyana) in the Brahman. This is is why Shankara came up with the theory of Mayavada. But in my opinion Mayavada again only describes the effects of ignorance, but not why ignorance exists in the first place. This is where Advaitins end up contradicting their theory. Now even if we concede that duality is unreal and hence does not really exist, but is ignorance real. If Agyana (ignorance) is real and manifestly inherent in the brahman, without a proper argument as to why it exists, we have to assume that duality is the nature of the brahman.

It is this contradiction that the buddhist and Dvaitins/Vishishtadvaitins latch on to and subject Advaitins to criticism. The Advaitin counter argument is the causation theory. Since the existence of the duality is dependent on existence of ignorance and existence of ignorance is dependent on the existence of the brahman, duality and ignorance are hence dependent on the presence of the brahman. Ignorance/duality need the existence of the brahman, but not vice-versa. This is where we must see the buddhist argument of Sunyata comes in. If the vedantins cannot explain the cause of ignorance, then ignorance is inherent quality of the brahman and hence the only solution to dissolving ignorance is to dissolve the brahman (in which the ignorance originates)