Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[ManishH]

I agree with respect for cows being in the Vedas.

But I've not come across the concept ahiṃsa (as Buddha propogated) in the vedas (Rigveda at least). In RV, this word is mostly used in the sense of "prevent injury or harm" - basically prayers to a Deva for safety. Can you please pass me a pointer that says do not injure or use violence ? Thanks.

[Murugan]

The Chāndogya Upaniṣad, dated to the 8th or 7th century BCE, one of the oldest Upanishads, has the earliest evidence for the use of the word ahimsa in the sense familiar in Hinduism (a code of conduct). It bars violence against "all creatures" (sarvabhuta) and the practitioner of ahimsa is said to escape from the cycle of metempsychosis (CU 8.15.1).[9] It also names ahimsa as one of five essential virtues (CU 3.17.4). A few scholars are of the opinion that this passage was a concession to growing influence of shramanic culture on the Brahmanical religion.[10]

VIII-xv-1: Brahma expounded this to Prajapati. Prajapati to Manu and Manu to his descendants. He who has read the Veda according to the prescribed rule, in the time left over after performing his duties to the teacher, he who after having come back from the teacher’s house, settles down in his household, continues the study of the Veda in a clean place, and has virtuous sons and disciples, he who withdraws all his senses into the Atman, who practises non-injury to all beings except in places specially ordained, he who behaves thus throughout his life reaches the world of Brahman and does not return again – yea, he does not return again.

Om ! Let my limbs and speech, Prana, eyes, ears, vitality
And all the senses grow in strength.
All existence is the Brahman of the Upanishads.
May I never deny Brahman, nor Brahman deny me.
Let there be no denial at all:
Let there be no denial at least from me.
May the virtues that are proclaimed in the Upanishads be in me,
Who am devoted to the Atman; may they reside in me.
Om ! Peace ! Peace ! Peace !

[ManishH]

Chāndogya Upanishad is definitely later than the Vedas. It must be showing influence of social change towards non-violence. Also, 8.15.1 is a partial translation. Ahimsa is to be practiced only "anyatra tirthebhyaḥ" - other than for places of worship/ritual.

http://fiindolo.sub.uni-goettingen.de/g ... up___u.htm

[Murugan]

Bhagavad Gita In chapter 10 Verse 5 Lord Krishna speaks about Ahimsa


अहिंसा समता तुष्टि
तपो दानं यशो अयश:
भवन्ति भाव भूतानाम
मत्त एव पृथग - विधः

[svenkat]

ManishHji,
I will do downhill skiing.Vedic sacrifices do involve killing of animals.So the idea 'cannot be traced' to the Samhita portion,I suppose.Yes,Upanishads is the farthest we can go back.Only in this larger sense,can we say the idea goes back to Vedas.Definitely,the Upanishads ante-date Buddha.

I still remember reading a reference to 'Ahimsa' in the Samhita portion.It was with reference to 'not killing' and with a particular emphasis on not killing an athreya.I will try to ferret it out.Others might be able to help with this 'hint'.

[Sanku]

ManishHji,
I will do downhill skiing.Vedic sacrifices do involve killing of animals..

Umm, the Rig-veda sacrifices only Soma right? What other sacrifices are specifically talked in Rig Veda? I know of Soma, Ghee and wood.

In fact Arya Samaj with its "return to roots" basics used the Vedas to talk against Animal sacrifices?

[abhischekcc]

>>More fundamentally,Buddhism was a protest movement within Hinduism which lost its purpose once the mother community responded positively to its legitimate criticism.

I disagree with that. Buddhism was the latest episode of a much longer fight between Kshatriya and Brahmin communities. Essentially, Buddhism tried to subsume Brahminism within itself, but failed, destroying the social structure of India, and codemning us to a 1000 year long period of domination by outsiders.

And Orthodox Hinduism did NOT respond positively to Buddhism. All the superstitions, temple building, worship of yantras, rebirth of vamachara - took place after the advent of Buddhism.

I still can't make head or tail of whether Buddhism was good for India or bad.

[abhischekcc]

PS
I am not an expert on respect for cows

[ManishH]

Umm, the Rig-veda sacrifices only Soma right? What other sacrifices are specifically talked in Rig Veda? I know of Soma, Ghee and wood.

In fact Arya Samaj with its "return to roots" basics used the Vedas to talk against Animal sacrifices?

Sankuji: Animal sacrifice (other than cows) is attested in RV. Eg 1.162 describes a horse sacrifice and cooking in substantial detail. At the same time, in other hymns, there are prayers against "ghorachakshasa kravyaada" - fierce eyed carnivores. In the latter, there is some dispute in translation - because Agni is also called kravyaada (flesh eater - refers to the cremation ritual) in other places.

However, Cow is "aghneyaya" - one who should not be killed. For obvious reasons - a live cow can feed a large family living in pastoral lands. It's basically a food-processor that turns grass into food usable by a pastoralist society. Deification was natural.

I've never understood Arya Samaj philosophy properly - they want to go back to Vedas but rule out Polytheism. Sounds contradictory to me. Monotheism in Vedas does exist but not at the cost of polytheism. It basically says there may be a single creator.

Apologies in advance if hurt any sentiments. Hinduism is an ever evolving entity and nothing embarassing about values and mores of different times. IMHO.

PS: Grass (Barhis) as an important herb in vedic ritual is more ancient than modern Hindu practice of Peepal/Mango/Plantain leaves. Many Priests still use Kusa grass in homas. The RV hymns always talk of gods or pitaraha (ancestors) as seated on grass (barhishada). Another remnant of a pastoral society.

[Sushupti]

Economics of Bahuka and Greenspan

S. GURUMURTHY

Tailpiece: Here is the Indian equivalent of Greenspan's economics — the economics of Bahuka. Bahuka figures in the Bhagawata Purana, and was the advisor of Jarasandha, who was Kamsa's father-in-law. Kamsa, who regarded Sri Krishna as his enemy, asked Bahuka's advice on how to make his subjects state-dependent. Bahuka told him: “Open your treasury to the people. Make the people eat, drink and enjoy themselves. Bring up children to look upon parents as old and useless. That will make them laugh at those who talk of duty, love and compassion. Like well-fed cattle at the mercy of the cowherd, the people will be completely dependent on you.”

Rejecting the sage advice of the likes of Milton Friedman and Martin Feldstein, decades ago, the US opted to follow the economics of the likes of Greenspan. The result: Half of American families are state-dependent. But fortunately, Bahuka's economics, close to Greenspan's, was ignored by Indians thousands of years ago, though, of late, some Indian politicians seem influenced by Bahuka's economics.



http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opi ... epage=true

[Aditya_V]

Economics of Bahuka and Greenspan

S. GURUMURTHY

Tailpiece: Here is the Indian equivalent of Greenspan's economics — the economics of Bahuka. Bahuka figures in the Bhagawata Purana, and was the advisor of Jarasandha, who was Kamsa's father-in-law. Kamsa, who regarded Sri Krishna as his enemy, asked Bahuka's advice on how to make his subjects state-dependent. Bahuka told him: “Open your treasury to the people. Make the people eat, drink and enjoy themselves. Bring up children to look upon parents as old and useless. That will make them laugh at those who talk of duty, love and compassion. Like well-fed cattle at the mercy of the cowherd, the people will be completely dependent on you.”

Rejecting the sage advice of the likes of Milton Friedman and Martin Feldstein, decades ago, the US opted to follow the economics of the likes of Greenspan. The result: Half of American families are state-dependent. But fortunately, Bahuka's economics, close to Greenspan's, was ignored by Indians thousands of years ago, though, of late, some Indian politicians seem influenced by Bahuka's economics.



http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opi ... epage=true

Anther link

kaMsa's Strategy: How to extinguish the hope of deliverance in People

Mighty Prince, there is only one way to destroy the sages and the Brahmans. Open your purse-strings to the people; teach them to eat, drink and enjoy themselves; break up their families; teach women that chastity is not worth having at the cost of pleasure; bring up children to look upon their parents as old and useless. Once the people begin to believe in unrestrained pleasures as the goal of life, they will look upon the ascetics as deranged and the Brahmans as selfish; they will laugh at those who talk of duty, tapas, love and compassion. When wine flows, self-restraint will disappear; men will be like well-fed cattle at the mercy of their cowherds. Whatever you do they will bear as patiently as uncomplaining beasts, and obey your lash as if it were a favour from you.'

'That is a long path to follow that you have shown us, Bahuka. We shall try to follow it. In the meantime, Putana, find out how many children were born during the last few days and see that none of them survives.'

[Sanku]

Umm, the Rig-veda sacrifices only Soma right? What other sacrifices are specifically talked in Rig Veda? I know of Soma, Ghee and wood.

In fact Arya Samaj with its "return to roots" basics used the Vedas to talk against Animal sacrifices?

Sankuji: Animal sacrifice (other than cows) is attested in RV. Eg 1.162 describes a horse sacrifice and cooking in substantial detail. At the same time, in other hymns, there are prayers against "ghorachakshasa kravyaada" - fierce eyed carnivores. In the latter, there is some dispute in translation - because Agni is also called kravyaada (flesh eater - refers to the cremation ritual) in other places.

Oh no, Ashwamedha -- is not animal sacrifice per se. Let me explain, RV does not ask for regular ritual sacrifices as part of of the hom, and considering the number of times Ashwamedha is done, and its import, it would be hardly correct to say that RV asks for animal sacrifice.

RV does not ask for animal sacrifices, just that some time on certain occasion sacrificing a animal is also part of the Yagya.

There is no contradiction between these at all, since the contradiction comes from binary analysis that we have unfortunately learnt to apply, the opposite of asking for animal sacrifice is not "shivering at the thought of ever sacrificing a animal"

Neither is sacrificing a animal (or a human, in battle) opposite of ahimsa.


However, Cow is "aghneyaya" - one who should not be killed. For obvious reasons - a live cow can feed a large family living in pastoral lands. It's basically a food-processor that turns grass into food usable by a pastoralist society. Deification was natural.

I've never understood Arya Samaj philosophy properly - they want to go back to Vedas but rule out Polytheism. Sounds contradictory to me. Monotheism in Vedas does exist but not at the cost of polytheism. It basically says there may be a single creator.

Apologies in advance if hurt any sentiments. Hinduism is an ever evolving entity and nothing embarassing about values and mores of different times. IMHO.

PS: Grass (Barhis) as an important herb in vedic ritual is more ancient than modern Hindu practice of Peepal/Mango/Plantain leaves. Many Priests still use Kusa grass in homas. The RV hymns always talk of gods or pitaraha (ancestors) as seated on grass (barhishada). Another remnant of a pastoral society.[/quote]

[SwamyG]

I've never understood Arya Samaj philosophy properly - they want to go back to Vedas but rule out Polytheism. Sounds contradictory to me. Monotheism in Vedas does exist but not at the cost of polytheism. It basically says there may be a single creator.

Sanku maharaj ki Jai ho, and Jai Ho to Polytheism.
Monotheism is the belief that there is ONLEE...... {please repeat 108 Onlees onlee} ONE GOD.
My theory is that theism came before philosophy; and Vedas would validate my theory. Upanishads came later in time. And Upanishads focuses on MONISM (which is different from Monotheism).

The Hindus, rightly in my opinion, gave up when trying to quantify and qualify our gods. Initially people worshiped several deities, then some deities rose in prominence. Philosophy came later trying to put sense into what people where doing. Slowly, theism and philosophy began influencing each other.

[RamaY]

My theory is that theism came before philosophy; and Vedas would validate my theory. Upanishads came later in time. And Upanishads focuses on MONISM

I heard it somewhere else as well. Could you pls point out the sources? I thought Upanishads are interlaced within various sections of vedas.

thanks

[SwamyG]

Are you asking for sources for the thought/theory that Upanishads were written/compiled/interlaced at later time? If yes, I will 'try' to hunt the sources for you. That is the take away I have on the structure and timeline of Upanishads.

[RamaY]

I am looking for the sources on how the "theory" of Upanishads came after Vedas when they are part of Vedas.

Of course there are many Upanishads that came after Vedas - Here Upanishad being nothing but a philosophical quote of a yogi. I am talking of major Upanishads.

[ramana]

Genius who translated Indian epics

Genius who translated Indian epics Monday, 07 November 2011
SHASHI SHEKHAR

There are many who believe that multilingual scholar AK Ramanujan, who is in the news for Delhi University's rejection of his controversial essay on the many versions of Ramayana for undergraduate studies, is the best translator. But one cannot ignore the massive contribution of Manamathanatha Datta who translated virtually every important Indian epic between the late-19th and early-20th century.

The past few weeks have seen Indian literature scholar AK Ramanujan being described as India’s greatest translator. While much of Ramanujan's translations have been from literary works in Tamil, Telugu and Kannada it would be a stretch to describe him as the greatest translator. While the jury may be out on to who else could be the likely candidate, a possible name is that of Manamathanatha Datta.

Little is available in the public domain of Datta’s life story. Most of his works describe him as a Rector at the Keshab Academy in Kolkata for several years. In a review of Professor P Lal’s verse by verse translation of Mahabharata, Datta is also described as having been a Rector at the Serampore College between 1895 and 1905. The closest thing to a biography of Datta can be found on a German language website on the Ramayana. The website describes his educational background as an MA and MRAS while going on to speculate on what was likely a marathon few decades of effort spent on translations.

What makes Datta’s candidacy to be perhaps described as India’s greatest translator is the sheer volume of translations he undertook within his lifetime. Datta’s voluminous three-part translation of Vyasa’s Mahabharata and five-part translation of Valmiki’s Ramayana stand out. In addition, to Datta’s credit are translations of Sayana’s Commentary of the Rig Veda, Markandeya Purana, Agni Purana, Vishnu Purana, Garuda Purana and the Bhagavatam.

It would be a mistake to conclude that Manamathanatha Datta’s translation work was limited to ancient Sanskrit texts of Vedic and Puranic origin. In fact, Datta to his credit also authored a translation of Mahanirvana Tantra and a book on Buddha’s life, his teachings and his order, which Datta says in the preface is based on all extant works in Sanskrit and Pali. In the Gleanings from Indian Classics Datta profiles the lives of eighteen historical Indian women ranging from Rani Sanyukta to Mirabai. Other translations by Datta include the Manu Samhita, Harivamsam, Parashara Samhita, Gautama Samhita and Kamandakiya Nitisara. He is also described as the editor of a monthly magazine, ‘Wealth of India’.

A criticism of Datta’s verse by verse translation of the Mahabharata is the manner in which he avoids translating verses in the Adi Parva on two occasions on account of explicitly sexual content. But for this notable omission Datta’s English translation of the epic stands out for what a translation ought to really be about — a dry literal rendition that keeps interpretations to a minimum. In fact, one must contrast Datta’s translation with another body of work from the same era by KC Ganguli to understand the stark distinction in which the latter injects Victorian English and Christian metaphors into his narrative. Beyond the criticism of Datta’s omissions of sexual content in certain verses of the Mahabharata, it appears that there has not been much scholarly appreciation of his translations.

Most of Manamathanatha Datta’s work can be accessed digitally through the GoogleBooks Archive and the public domain Archives website http://archive.org. It is speculated that his translation of the Mahabharata spanned a 10-year period between 1895 and 1905 and that of the Ramayana a five-year period between 1889 and 1894.

The Rigveda Samhita translated by him between 1906 and 1912 appears to be incomplete for unknown reasons. It is unfortunate that not much else is known of Datta’s life beyond his memory preserved within the mammoth body of translation he left behind more than a century ago, that today is accessible to a wide population thanks to modern technology.

In this age of ideologically coloured political debates on history and ancient Indian literature there may not be much space or room for an unsung translator like Manamathanatha Datta. His dry, literal translations with limited interpretations don’t make for anyone’s politico-ideological agenda.

But for the enlightened reader who is looking to make his or her own interpretations, Datta’s works should serve as a handy English language reference to Vedic and Puranic age Sanskrit Literature. A fitting tribute to him would be to undertaken the digitisation efforts further where the original Sanskrit in Devanagiri along side English language transliterations and translations are made available in a web friendly hyperlinked format allowing for cross referencing and keyword searches. Such a digital platform would take Datta’s 19th century efforts to their logical conclusion.

You budding $Maires should think of funding such a project.

[Agnimitra]

My theory is that theism came before philosophy; and Vedas would validate my theory. Upanishads came later in time. And Upanishads focuses on MONISM (which is different from Monotheism).

I'm afraid your idea is tainted with neo-Advaitist ideology, which tends to derogate large portions of shruti and smriti in explaining its own inclinations and ideology. Such an idea is not in keeping with the nyaaya and epistemology of Veda itself.

If by "theism" you mean an element of curiosity undergirded by devotion, then you will find that in all Vedic literature. All the prasthaana-traya form a unified manifold when seen through the correct hermeneutic lens. But parts of them will appear contradictory, disharmonious or obsolescent if they are viewed through a defective philosophical prism. The paradigm that lends the greatest information entropy to the Vedic letter should be considered the best.

In this regard, I feel that Madhvacharya's contribution has been greatly under-appreciated by the nation. In fact, various sectarian groups with a grudge against him have consistently tried to misrepresent his philosophy as "dualism" or some such thing, and that continues today. In fact, the shoe is on the other foot - they are the ones who see a dichotomy between "theism" and "philosophy". I humbly recommend that you check Madhva out. He not only wrote commentaries on the principal Upanishads, and the Vedanta sutras, but also provided a key to interpret the RigVeda itself - something the other acharyas did not leave behind.

[RamaY]

A fitting tribute to him would be to undertaken the digitisation efforts further where the original Sanskrit in Devanagiri along side English language transliterations and translations are made available in a web friendly hyperlinked format allowing for cross referencing and keyword searches. Such a digital platform would take Datta’s 19th century efforts to their logical conclusion

You budding $Maires should think of funding such a project.

I don't think I am rich but I dont think it should stop me either. Like a character in Srutilayalu telugu movies says "protection of our culture is as important and essential as we eating, earning, and taking care of our children".

Recently I came across Sri Kappagantula Lakshmana Sastry's Telugu Mahabharata translation to Vyasa Bharatam. This is a little different from Andhra MahaBharatamu by Kavitrayam (Nannaya, Tikkana, Erra Pragada).

I am reading Adi Parva now and man it is a trove of valuable information and so much jnan. Often a single page of that book covers as much jnan as a complete 100 page thread we discuss here.

Anyways, I have decided to prepare a database of people, places and their relationships based on MB. My plan is to put them in an Excel file first so I can prepare a network diagram from that. Then if possible superimpose it on google maps with modern locations.

This will be part of my IndicTrust project.

[SwamyG]

I am looking for the sources on how the "theory" of Upanishads came after Vedas when they are part of Vedas.

Of course there are many Upanishads that came after Vedas - Here Upanishad being nothing but a philosophical quote of a yogi. I am talking of major Upanishads.

Ah...you are talking about my "theory". It is just based on cumulative reading . The reasons I hesitate to give sources is because they are so easy to find. Just google. Granted, the dating of our scriptures, history let alone Vedas and Upanishads are suspicious and we, together, would not agree with the past Indologists. So setting the dating issue aside, I feel, the philosophical components emerged later than the theism. Like you seem to agree/imply about the time periods; our copious literature were compiled, orally transmitted or written down over hundreds of years, if not thousands. They were product of their times and owed to their past and current flavor of thoughts.

And I am just relying on past scholars, I am no scholar myself.

Did I answer? [just one link to show I can google: http://indianscriptures.50webs.com/partveda.htm] As you can see scholars have differing points, and I am not sure there will be any consensus - so I have taken the stance of there being a greater probability that the Vedas were compiled over a wide time period. Material was added over time. And philosophy came later. Do not think I am advocating a pure water fall methodology. Think of an iteration (agile cycle) where mantras+brahmanans+aranyakas+upanishads churned through people's minds over a time - again and again.

I'm afraid your idea is tainted with neo-Advaitist ideology, which tends to derogate large portions of shruti and smriti in explaining its own inclinations and ideology. Such an idea is not in keeping with the nyaaya and epistemology of Veda itself.

I am afraid it is only tainted by SwamyGist thoughts, nothing else. Shruti vs Smrit might be an interesting discussion. All said and done, I consider for the moment gods as man-made. I will change my stance after I have been sufficiently satisfied. So considering all artifacts as human made - so I do not give much value to "being remembered" vs "having heard" - it all originated in man's brains.

[Yagnasri]

For the people interested and can read Telugu there is a blog called Sahithyabhinamaani which has lot of books and information in Telugu litarature and also a lot on Cartoons etc. But it is in Telugu and managed by my frind Kappaganthula Sivaramaprasad from Vijayawada. The pictures by Vapa ( vaddadhi Papayya) and others in Chandamama during its golden period covering various stories of our great epics are there. Some of them are with me also and if you are interested you can mail me at [email protected] and I will try to send them to you.

[ManishH]

I've never understood Arya Samaj philosophy properly - they want to go back to Vedas but rule out Polytheism. Sounds contradictory to me. Monotheism in Vedas does exist but not at the cost of polytheism. It basically says there may be a single creator.

Sanku maharaj ki Jai ho, and Jai Ho to Polytheism.
Monotheism is the belief that there is ONLEE...... {please repeat 108 Onlees onlee} ONE GOD.

SwamyG: the quote attributed to Sanku actually belongs to me. I think Sanku's post had botched tags so it wrongly appeared that he wrote them.

Let me clarify - by 'It' (underlined above), I meant the RV verses that allude to monotheism. So my understanding is RV has many gods - some more important than others. But there are verses - in a speculative or inquiring note which say the Creator of universe could be just one. Creation is just one aspect of what is a God.

[Murugan]

I am looking for the sources on how the "theory" of Upanishads came after Vedas when they are part of Vedas.

Of course there are many Upanishads that came after Vedas - Here Upanishad being nothing but a philosophical quote of a yogi. I am talking of major Upanishads.

A Guru-ji of mine told me that upanishads are extracts of jnan from vedas and other darshans.

Btw, i offer my candidature in any position for your IndicTrust. Aaj nahi to Kal, Lets do it.

[Murugan]

Lookie

http://www.mumbaipooram.com/
11th November to 13th November

Gathas and Kathas Lives

35 RICH ART FORMS
6000 PROFESSIONAL ARTISTS
5 CAPARISONED ELEPHANTS
PANCHAVADYAM BY Kalamandalam parameswara marar & Party
MELAM lead by Cherusseri Kuttan
Pancha Maha THAYAMBAKA lead by Kalloor Ramankutty Asan
SHINGARI MELAM lead by Kumarapuram Sreedharan
KUDAMATTAM
ILLUMINATION by Dasan, Trichur
MIND BLOWING LASER SHOW
FIREWORKS & PYROTECHNICS
EXHIBITION & HANDICRAFTS
PAINTING EXHIBITION

[Murugan]

First Ever E-library of Ancien Manuscript

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 648932.cms

The Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Institute of Indology is also a treasure trove of manuscripts relating to Jainism. In all, there are about 45,000 printed books along with 75,000 manuscripts, out of which 500 are illustrated. These documents from the past cover a wide range of subjects like Vedas, Agamas, Buddhism, Tantras, Jain darshana, system of Indian philosophy, Jain philoshopy, and grammar.

The institute, housed in an aesthetically designed building, now plans to take up the project of digitizing close to 75,000 manuscripts that they have gathered and preserved over the past four decades. Some of these manuscripts are written in gold. The institute is developing an electronic register and setting up a well-equipped preservation and restoration laboratory as well. "This project will take at least five years to complete," said Shah.

[Sanku]

Sanku maharaj ki Jai ho, and Jai Ho to Polytheism.
Monotheism is the belief that there is ONLEE...... {please repeat 108 Onlees onlee} ONE GOD.

SwamyG: the quote attributed to Sanku actually belongs to me. I think Sanku's post had botched tags so it wrongly appeared that he wrote them.

Let me clarify - by 'It' (underlined above), I meant the RV verses that allude to monotheism. So my understanding is RV has many gods - some more important than others. But there are verses - in a speculative or inquiring note which say the Creator of universe could be just one. Creation is just one aspect of what is a God.

Yes that is correct about the quotes !! SwamyG, I am afraid I will have to pass on your regards this time

ManishH-ji, what I was trying to say and the quotes tag botched up is that "We are ONLEE this" is a flawed vision on Indian philosophy. Rig Veda also is polytheist in the western sense since there are many deva's -- therefore Arya Samaj -- is not against polytheism at its core -- can not be -- it is FOR simpler Vedic approach to Karm-kand in religion.

This means, less Puja, no systematic animal sacrifice as part of Puja -- and more back to the basics movement.

If you take this approach there is no contradiction that often seems to exist. Both statements are true, since absolutes are anyway eschewed.

[ManishH]

Sankuji: Animal sacrifice (other than cows) is attested in RV. Eg 1.162 describes a horse sacrifice and cooking in substantial detail.

Oh no, Ashwamedha -- is not animal sacrifice per se. Let me explain, RV does not ask for regular ritual sacrifices as part of of the hom, and considering the number of times Ashwamedha is done, and its import, it would be hardly correct to say that RV asks for animal sacrifice.

Sankuji: Ashvamedha is a highly involved and later ritual meant to be performed only by Kings. But animal sacrifice is attested in vedic literature for well-being of/by lesser mortals too (RV1.162). If we are to go by later sources, like the Shatapatha Brahmana, it was even recommended for grhastas. On the question of how frequent an animal sacrifice - it can be once a year. I'll quote Shatapatha Brahmana 11.7.1-3:

taṃ vai saṃvatsaro nānījanamatīyādāyurvai
saṃvatsara āyurevaitadamṛtamātmandhatte

Let not a year pass without this offering. The year means life: it is thus immortal life he confers upon himself.

The benefits of an animal sacrifice - punarṇavatāmanu yajamānamanu gṛhāśca paśavaścāyuṣyo - renewal of the yajamana, his house and health of the cattle.

Neither is sacrificing a animal (or a human, in battle) opposite of ahimsa.

Indeed it's not against Vedic belief. But it is against the Buddhist concept of ahimsa. So there is definite disagreement between the Buddhist ahimsa and the Vedic practice which preceded it.

One might find apologia for animal sacrifice on the net which says all of the above is a mistranslation and the animal is merely tied at the yajna -, "paśubandhena yajate". But the fate of the animal is in reality unambigous here - yajamānaṃ saṃkalpayanti pacanti vā anyeṣvagniṣu vṛthāmāṃsamathaiteṣāṃ nāto'nyā māṃsāśā vidyate yasyo caite bhavanti. And then - paramannādyaṃ yanmāṃsaṃ sa paramasyaivānnādyasyāttā bhavati

To be fair, there are cases where Vedic ritual moved away from slaughter to just symbolic tying of the animal and carrying the fire around it. Eg. Satapatha Brahmana 3.7.2.8

muṣkaro bhavatyeṣa vai prajanayitā ...
... hāntamiyāttatprajāmutsṛjati tasmānna saṃsthāpayetparyagnikṛtamevotsṛjet

An animal (anatomically described male) in reproductive age should not be slaughtered lest it end the (it's or yours?) progeny. Simply carry the fire around it and set it free. So we see prani-ahimsa gradually emerge from vedic ritual itself.

Which really means Vedic religion was not cast in orthodoxy; pre-medieval Hinduism is historically such a malleable religion that change of social mores reflects in ritual and religion.

This means, less Puja, no systematic animal sacrifice as part of Puja -- and more back to the basics movement.

I think I lack an understanding of Arya Samaj philosophy to comment on them. If it is simplifying ritual and making it closer to nature, it indeed is admirable. But I personally don't agree with monotheism ...

Aryasamaj and Monotheism

[Sanku]

But animal sacrifice is attested in vedic literature for well-being of/by lesser mortals too (RV1.162). If we are to go by later sources, like the Shatapatha Brahmana, it was even recommended for grhastas.

ManishH-ji; as you said Shatapatha Brahmana is a later source, I guess the difference is what we mean by Vedic sources. If we include all the ancillary texts themselves as 'Vedic' then yes, Vedic practices do include animal sacrifice.

However the "core" Vedic texts do not.

My understanding is that the iregular animal sacrifice was a layer added on the basic 'core' Vedic texts at a later period.

Note this discussion is not to say whether animal sacrifice is himsa or not, merely to say that core Veda's do not talk of animal sacrifice requirement.

Animal sacrifice as a popular method of homa is not seen in the Mahabharata, however by Buddha's time, (1500 BCE) there appears to be enough of it to worry Siddhartha. Therefore the 1500 years period between MB and Siddhartha Gautama, appears to be the transition period.

Also note, Siddhartha is from Nepal terai belt, a region of Staunchly Shakt tradition -- (interesting question -- when did the Shakta traditions gain popularity there?) -- could this be the reason for a great Blood sacrifice as part of Yagya as seen by him?

Overall point? >> The Buddhist Ahimsa, essentially has roots in Vedic Ahimsa (you have yourself quoted an example) -- it is just that Veda's are not exclusive, in the sense while asking for one kind of acharan they also leave enough scope of other actions in moderation.

Meanwhile Buddhism focused more on a single aspect -- I merely see Veda's or Hinduism and a General umbrella and Buddhism more a special focus group.

I think I lack an understanding of Arya Samaj philosophy to comment on them. If it is simplifying ritual and making it closer to nature, it indeed is admirable. But I personally don't agree with monotheism ...

Aryasamaj and Monotheism

Sir, I think rather than your lack of understanding on Arya Samaj, the issue here is that Arya Samaj lack understanding of sufficient western paradigms and thus do not express themselves correctly, because they are letting themselves be forced by English language, once again For example what they are talking about is Monism and not Monoethism.

However most Indians are well versed enough in western traditions to understand that the English words are really mis-representing their traditions.

[ManishH]

ManishH-ji; as you said Shatapatha Brahmana is a later source, I guess the difference is what we mean by Vedic sources. If we include all the ancillary texts themselves as 'Vedic' then yes, Vedic practices do include animal sacrifice.

However the "core" Vedic texts do not.

Would Rgveda 1.161,2,3 be a "core" text ? They do contain details of animal sacrifice.

Overall point? >> The Buddhist Ahimsa, essentially has roots in Vedic Ahimsa (you have yourself quoted an example) -- it is just that Veda's are not exclusive, in the sense while asking for one kind of acharan they also leave enough scope of other actions in moderation.

Quite well put. I agree. If more such internal early evidences for self-reformation emerge, Buddhism as a pure reform movement will have to be reconsidered.

[Sanku]

ManishH-ji; as you said Shatapatha Brahmana is a later source, I guess the difference is what we mean by Vedic sources. If we include all the ancillary texts themselves as 'Vedic' then yes, Vedic practices do include animal sacrifice.

However the "core" Vedic texts do not.

Would Rgveda 1.161,2,3 be a "core" text ? They do contain details of animal sacrifice.

Can you share the details of what are the methods etc.

[ManishH]

You asked for it. RV 1.162:

eṣa chāgaḥ puro aśvena vājinā pūṣṇo bhāgo nīyate viśvadevyaḥ

This she-goat who is Pusan's share is led towards the steed.

yad dhaviṣyam ṛtuśo devayānaṃ trirmānuṣāḥ paryaśvaṃ nayanti

Thrice the men lead the horse around as it goes to the Gods.

ad vājino dāma sundānamarvato yā śīrṣaṇyā ...
... tṛṇaṃ sarvā tā te api deveṣvastu

May the steed's reins etc. grass in the mouth be among the Gods.

yadaśvasya kraviṣo makṣikāśa ...
yad dhastayoḥ śamituryan nakheṣu sarvā tā te api deveṣvastu

What horse's flesh the fly ate, ...
... what was stuck to the hands and nails of the slayer, may this too be amongst the Gods

yadūvadhyamudarasyāpavāti ya āmasya kraviṣo gandho asti

What undigested food is in it's stomach and the smell of the flesh

...medhaṃ śṛtapākaṃ pacantu

May the sacrifice be nicely cooked

yat te gātrādagninā pacyamānādabhi ...

That from your limbs which is cooked by fire

mā tad bhūmyāmā śriṣan mā tṛṇeṣu devebhyastaduśadbhyo

May that left on the ground or grass be willingly offered to the Gods.

ye vājinaṃ paripaśyanti pakvaṃ ya īmāhuḥ surabhirnirhareti
ye cārvato māṃsabhikṣāmupāsata uto teṣāmabhigūrtirna invatu

They who look out for the cooked (or ready) steed, say the smell is good
They who await the distribution of meat, their approval strengthen this

nikramaṇaṃ niṣadanaṃ vivartanaṃ yacca paḍbīśamarvataḥ
yacca papau yacca ghāsiṃ jaghāsa sarvā tā te api deveṣvastu

Where it walked, where it rested and paced around ropes that bound its feet
What it drank, what it masticated, all these are among Gods

catustriṃśad vājino devabandhorvaṅkrīraśvasya svadhitiḥsameti
The axe falls upon the 34-ribbed steed who is Gods' own

yā te gātrāṇām ṛtuthā kṛṇomi tā-tā piṇḍanāṃ pra juhomyagnau

Of these limbs, I set in order, make balls and to fire I offer

mā tvā tapat priya ātmāpiyantaṃ mā svadhitistanva ātiṣṭhipat te

Let not your dear soul heat up, let not the axe remain (stuck) in you

na vā u etan mriyase na riṣyasi devānideṣi pathibhiḥ sugebhiḥ

No you (the sacrificed horse) aren't dead or injured, you go to Gods on good roads

sugavyaṃ no vājī svaśvyaṃ puṃsaḥ putrānuta viśvāpuṣaṃ rayim

May this steed give us good cattle, manly sons, nourishing riches

[abhischekcc]

Anyways, I have decided to prepare a database of people, places and their relationships based on MB. My plan is to put them in an Excel file first so I can prepare a network diagram from that. Then if possible superimpose it on google maps with modern locations.

This will be part of my IndicTrust project.

Hi RamaY,

I am doing a similar project (not MB). Please contact me at - bushlovesosama atzerate gchacha dawt com.

We could share ideas and programs.

[RamaY]

ABCC ji

Mail sent.

[Agnimitra]

Sir, I think rather than your lack of understanding on Arya Samaj, the issue here is that Arya Samaj lack understanding of sufficient western paradigms and thus do not express themselves correctly, because they are letting themselves be forced by English language, once again For example what they are talking about is Monism and not Monoethism.

However most Indians are well versed enough in western traditions to understand that the English words are really mis-representing their traditions.

Sanku ji, please do not force your philosophical preference on the Arya Samaj, any other Acharya, or Veda itself. Arya Samaj's Swami Dayananda is clearly not talking of "monism" in the way that many neo-Advaitists talk about it. Read his Satyartha Prakash. Regarding His Holiness Shankaracharya's popular philosophy, he warns that if it is taken to mean that the soul is identical with God, then that is wrong. (OTOH, he also warns that dualism is wrong). The truth is subtle.

[SwamyG]

Manish: So Sanku maharaj botched it up, huh . Anyway Jai ho to you. I agree the Vedic people gave importance to one deity over another in some situations; and considered the other deities as lesser deities. I look Vedas as something that captured the transformation of our society over thousands of years; not from a historicity perspective but evolution of thoughts and practices.

[Sanku]

Sir, I think rather than your lack of understanding on Arya Samaj, the issue here is that Arya Samaj lack understanding of sufficient western paradigms and thus do not express themselves correctly, because they are letting themselves be forced by English language, once again For example what they are talking about is Monism and not Monoethism.

However most Indians are well versed enough in western traditions to understand that the English words are really mis-representing their traditions.

Sanku ji, please do not force your philosophical preference on the Arya Samaj, any other Acharya, or Veda itself.

Carl-ji; isnt the use of word "force" a little strong for my expressing an opinion about a matter? I am terribly sorry but I shall continue to "force" my views if that is the case -- cant help it, what do I do.


And oh what philosophical preferences? I have no preferences, expect a basic liking in equal measure for nearly all Indian philosophical thoughts, including most of Buddhism (esp the Vajrayan)

I have never been able to find what my preferences are, despite trying hard to understand them, if you as an external observer, can find them, please share, I shall find your analysis most intresting.

Arya Samaj's Swami Dayananda is clearly not talking of "monism" in the way that many neo-Advaitists talk about it.

Should I now say that you are forcing your views of what advaita or neo-advaita is on what you call neo-advaitism?

Read his Satyartha Prakash. Regarding His Holiness Shankaracharya's popular philosophy, he warns that if it is taken to mean that the soul is identical with God, then that is wrong. (OTOH, he also warns that dualism is wrong). The truth is subtle.

Which is fine, that is not important here though. The specific issue that the discussion was in context of was use of Arya samaj website link with one of the Swami's saying that Arya Samaj is against polyethism.

I shall reiterate, nothing from Arya Samaj that I have read in languages other than ENGLISH, seems to suggest that they even discuss polytheism or monotheism. It actually cant since there are no such concepts in any Indian languages, this is not a Indian construct.

These are issues when Arya Samaj has to express its views in English and it goofs up because like many other Indians, it tries to use English to express the thoughts that language can not help.

[Sanku]

Manish: So Sanku maharaj botched it up, huh .

Just imagine, the horror, the horror.

[Agnimitra]

Carl-ji; isnt the use of word "force" a little strong for my expressing an opinion about a matter?

Sanku ji, I apologize for coming on a bit too strong. But it is a fact that a certain ideological partisanship has controlled the modern day definition of "Hinduism" or "Vedanta", and that's what gets my goat!

And oh what philosophical preferences?

Pardon me if I am wrong, but I do discern a certain urgency in some fellow Rakshaks to completely divorce Indic philosophical constructs from Western/Abrahamic constructs. In disagreeing with and eschewing the imbalanced views and premature insistence of Abrahamics, we need not skew our own philosophy to such an extent, IMHO.

I shall reiterate, nothing from Arya Samaj that I have read in languages other than ENGLISH, seems to suggest that they even discuss polytheism or monotheism. It actually cant since there are no such concepts in any Indian languages, this is not a Indian construct.

So I guess the subjects and the delicate distinctions that dozens of Indian saints and philosophers have wrangled over have absolutely nothing to do with English language terms such as monotheism, monism, pantheism, panentheism, kathenotheism, anthropomorphism, impersonalism, etc?

And since you seem to have no problems using 'monism' as a blanket description of Vedanta without batting an eyelid, why the knee-jerk opposition to the use of 'monotheism'?

These are issues when Arya Samaj has to express its views in English and it goofs up because like many other Indians, it tries to use English to express the thoughts that language can not help.

Well, there are realities that any language cannot express. Then there are some realities that some languages can better express than others. But given any language it is possible to talk at some level about Vedic concepts. I just don't see why 'monism' is such a charm but 'monotheism' is anathema.

[Sanku]

But it is a fact that a certain ideological partisanship has controlled the modern day definition of "Hinduism" or "Vedanta", and that's what gets my goat!

Possibly, I would not know about that, since I am pretty unexposed to what modern day definition of Hinduism or Vedanta is, if any. So seek to be excused in advance.

And oh what philosophical preferences?

Pardon me if I am wrong, but I do discern a certain urgency in some fellow Rakshaks to completely divorce Indic philosophical constructs from Western/Abrahamic constructs.

Interesting, would the some fellow Rakshak's include me? Because I cant speak for others, so difficult to say for others. However speaking for myself -- I would say that Indic philosophical constructs are indeed divorced from Western/Abrahmic concepts, and the reason is quite simple -- the period of flowering of Indic thoughts and constructs has both preceded the Abrahmic ones in time, quite clearly, even by the most liberal estimates of their own. And also the temporal overlaps were quite divorced in geographical spaces -- I thus think that more than basic thoughts, which might have had overlap at some early time, most of the development has been indeed distinct.

This again is not a philosophical position for me, this is my understanding of how things are simply, if I am wrong none of my philosophies would be impacted, good for the Abhramaics I say. I would probably like to in that case examine how the linkages came to existence. (a historical examination)

In disagreeing with and eschewing the imbalanced views and premature insistence of Abrahamics, we need not skew our own philosophy to such an extent, IMHO.

I do not see why, sure a binary approach is a typical Abrahamic construct, but that does not mean that for everything Indics have to be equally fuzzy.

Being Indics, depending on the context, we can be dualist, monoist, or fuzzy or exact -- all is context. There are indeed some truths which can be known, just as there are unknowable truths.

The wise minds differentiates between the two.

So I guess the subjects and the delicate distinctions that dozens of Indian saints and philosophers have wrangled over have absolutely nothing to do with English language terms such as monotheism, monism, pantheism, panentheism, kathenotheism, anthropomorphism, impersonalism, etc?

I put it down to the unfortunate necessity of using a unsuitable language to communicate in, not a choice made for philosophical reason, but because in reality, English came to dominate the world space.

And that domination was not won on philosophical grounds -- we use English not because the comity of nations and philosophers naturally found that to be a more suitable language to represent wranglings of philosophy in.

Just like both of us now.

And since you seem to have no problems using 'monism' as a blanket description of Vedanta without batting an eyelid, why the knee-jerk opposition to the use of 'monotheism'?

Actually that statement is incorrect, the correct statement is "I prefer the use of Monism rather than Monoethsim", because
1) Monoism better approximates the Indic constructs,
2) Monoism has not been extensively used in the Abhramic dogmatic work, it is a newer philosophical formulation, thus having less historical baggage, more amenable for its semantic to be shaped by Indics.

So while its still playing "some one else's game" when using English and related western constructs, at least we have chances to make some new rules in unexplored areas.

So yeah, its clearly less of two bad choices.

[Agnimitra]

So while its still playing "some one else's game" when using English and related western constructs, at least we have chances to make some new rules in unexplored areas.

So yeah, its clearly less of two bad choices.

I see where you're coming from, and in this context I tend to agree. Abrahamic theologians borrowed a lot of Greek and Roman philosophical constructs which they cherry picked and patched together. So we can help restore the so called 'pagan' context from which such terms were cannibalized. IMHO by greater engagement with Abrahamics and their cultural extensions (like English language), we can modify and help these terms acquire fuller, more accurate meanings, rather than sport an insular make-do attitude. Already in Indic philosophy we have a vigorous tradition of debate between the different schools, which we can discuss and develop and use to engage with similar conflicts in Abrahamic schools. But these Indic distinctions are not explored more fully, and often papered over by some specious rationalization that eventually derogates Veda itself. And that brings the problem and argument full circle, to home base. So I would always be wary when someone chooses to divide 'context' along sociological lines of 'us' versus 'other', rather than ontologically.