Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 16 Aug 2013 00:21

http://www.kamat.com/

Hodge-podge of History, Mystery, and Diversity of India (and lots of pictures)

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 16 Aug 2013 01:16

There is no grand unified theory of Ishwara or the universe, in terms of it being cardinal truth. Two bestest theories ie, Sanatana Dharma and Buddhism are at logger heads. One accepts his existence, while other doesn't. Too bad now one has to pick either or someother based on his tastes or what one accepts as true.

I thought as a kid, Dharma is LCD of both philosophies. Ishwara too is Dharma bound, hence Dharma is greatest and it aces Ishwara, hence one can simply be dharma bound and still can reach Ishwara whether one believes in him or not because after all he too respects Dharmic law. But came to know through pravachanas that Ishwara is not dharma bound.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 16 Aug 2013 01:30

Another question, what does Ishwara meditate on if he is numero uno? you see Shiva in meditative pose (Yoga nidra)=> Ishwara in some form meditates, what does he meditate on? what is the need of the meditation? in our case, we bring the mind to a standstill state, it's original state to grasp the subtle concept of Paramatma etc. But when Ishwara himself is perfect, what is the purpose of his meditation when he is already perfect? what is the point of perfecting the perfect?

satya · Post by **satya** » 16 Aug 2013 01:33

panduranghari wrote:Please delete or move if inappropriate.

Some people claim its inauspicious to keep a copy of Mahabharata home as it creates a lot of rifts within family. Where did this idea originate? How true is it?

A humble question :
What's the use of political strategies and tactics found in Mahabharata for a grahasth ( married person) ?
Knowledge cannot sit idle so you better know how to use the strategies found in Pancham Ved in a positive manner ( & that require a different level of intellect not easily found or achieved .Know a couple of Siddh Purushas active in dilli circle even they 'dare' not venture in Pancham Ved , wonder why ? ) .

As for finding way of dharma via Mahabharata, good luck ! Even if its found do we have the confidence to accept & follow the path ?

Last resort is Do It Yourself . Get one , keep it at home and study it and see where it leads .

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 16 Aug 2013 01:40

Some people claim its inauspicious to keep a copy of Mahabharata home as it creates a lot of rifts within family. Where did this idea originate? How true is it?

Not sure about the origin of this thought. But Sri Koteswara Rao garu an eminent Pravachak, says that everyone who says he is dharmic must have a copy even if he/seh doesn't read MB and Ramayana. He says there is no Dharma that MB doesn't touch and if there is a something that MB hasnt touched, then man doesnt need it....meaning MB is complete.

Secondly, it's upto you. If I were a bad man, I would love to have the capability of adharmics in tormenting the dharmics, I can learn the lesson from MB...it depends on oneself. And if you are a dharmic you can use it as reference....so in both instances you will need the book.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 16 Aug 2013 01:57

I don't know if I'd say SD and Buddhism are at "loggerheads." My understanding of either principle is not perfect, but I thought Buddhism was agnostic, maybe iconoclastic, but certainly not atheistic? IOW, Buddhists don't worry overly about "is there a God, or not?" But it's an ambivalence, at best. Am I wrong?

Is Shiva's meditation akin to Vishnu's Yoga Nidra? Vishnu's yogic slumber is a transcendental state between the spiritual and material realms, where Vishnu is contemplating the entire universe for the benefit of beings which are enamored of maya. Sort of like a grand computer simulation. Quantum decoherence, and all that - the material states that Vishnu brings into being in his yogic dream, are the states that are enabled by the collective karma-phala of all the material beings in this universe. As and when certain material states become irrelevant, they "dematerialize," are reabsorbed by Vishnu.

Once upon a time people spoke of giants and goblins. Did they exist? They did to those people - whether only in their minds, or in "reality" is irrelevant. There is no reality independent of the observer. Once the scientific fever swept over people, men started seeking rational explanations for everything. They sought to prove that ghosts and giants and dragons were unsupported by science. Since that was the collective desire of mankind, and since the consequences of their scientific study were of a certain nature, Vishnu automatically "dematerialized" the possibility of ghosts and dragons. A quantum physicist would say that the "universe split into orthogonal states, one with the possibility of ghosts and dragons, and one without." Orthogonal universes isn't really necessary - irrelevant possibilities can be said to simply collapse back into God's infinite, immaterial potential.

Those possibilities - ghosts and goblins - still exist in Vishnu as abstractions, as potential, as spiritual concepts. He simply withdrew them from the material world, in deference to the desire of men and women to explain everything in "rational" terms, and in deference to the consequences of their scientific endeavors.

Stars and planets have been observed since antiquity. Did the "law of gravity" exist independently of the material beings who were blissfully living out their lives, indifferent to what makes the stars and planets move? Or did God materialize the possibility of "gravity" in deference to Newton's desire (or to the desire of the ancient Indians which is summarized in the Surya Siddhanta) to explain and rationalize the motion of the stars? Once the possibility was materialized, the quest of men and women to see if "gravity was always so," to seek reassurance that this "gravity" had always been in charge of matters in the universe - maybe it's this desire on our part that makes it seem to us that the evidence is overwhelming, that "gravity always existed." If tomorrow men lose interest in science, neglect to teach their children about "gravity," and go back to blissfully fulfilling their basic needs, "gravity" will "cease to exist" for these men - the possibility of gravity will be moot, since there will be no desire in men to rationalize the universe, since the consequences of their actions are in accordance with their desires. Then a hundred years hence, when the current generation of those times regains interest in science, they will "rediscover Newton," "rediscover the Surya Siddhanta," "rediscover gravity," rediscover the rational, ordered universe - Vishnu will fulfill their desires for rational explanations all over again.

Isn't that what quantum mechanics is about? No reality independent of the observer. It's a pretty fascinating paradigm, and lends credence to what the Buddha said - "do not waste your time in inquiries about the external world - such inquiries are fruitless. Instead try to understand yourself." Or something like that.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 16 Aug 2013 02:07

I don't know if I'd say SD and Buddhism are at "loggerheads." My understanding of either principle is not perfect, but I thought Buddhism was agnostic, maybe iconoclastic, but certainly not atheistic? IOW, Buddhists don't worry overly about "is there a God, or not?" But it's an ambivalence, at best. Am I wrong?

sudharshan garu, unfortunately yes. They don't answer the question of GodHead. Once a disciple of Buddha comes to him and asks him:

"Sir, does God exist?" to which Buddha replies - "When man can't carry a gallon full of water, what is the point of him talking about carrying a barrel full of water. When man hasn't understood man himself, what is the point of him trying to understand God".

They are more such anecdotes, but the point it, they are more interested in human suffering, the cycle of rebirth and pain it brings. They don't take the Vedas to be authority in defining dharma, for them, they can know through meditation. Because they dont vedas as pramaana, they are nastikas. If you don't take Vedas as pramaana, you cant take God to exist, the reason is Vedas are born with the God, Sri Koteswara Rao garu explains that Vedas are like the breathe of God, if one doesnt exist, the other cant.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 16 Aug 2013 02:11

Venug, this is still an ambivalent stance towards God, isn't it? Not exactly atheism?

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 16 Aug 2013 02:12

I just added a sentence...I apologize took time to add..

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 16 Aug 2013 02:14

OK, I saw that sentence just now. But by this stance, Jews, Xtians, and Muslims are all atheists?

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 16 Aug 2013 02:15

Yes. They are, they dont take Vedas as pramaana. It is not a stance, it is a requirement to be a dharmic(SD).

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 16 Aug 2013 02:21

gyan is no use unless it takes you to the source. Even in Buddhism, right living, right thought and right understanding are important for you to attain nirvana. So now, if Desert religions don't take Vedas as pramaana, which is the word of God, they are gone cases as per SD.
Hence I am confused too, Sri Ramakrishna ParamaHansa once said that "all paths lead to God" but now I don't know what to think or how to understand what he had said.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 16 Aug 2013 02:24

Well, I'm not sure the Jews/Xtians/Muslims will think of themselves as atheists. The latter two are certainly at loggerheads with SD, mostly on the karma vs. Messiah/saviour principle. But also because of their insistence that "their God" is the "one true God." How ridiculous can monotheism get!

But saar, how does an average Buddhist perceive himself/herself? Do they perceive themselves as atheists, or agnostics? If the latter, then is there really a need to antagonize them by saying - "no, you are atheists, you don't accept the one true authority (Vedas)?" Why not bring them back under one dharmic umbrella with a little compromise? Isn't this rigid "Veda pramaana" stance very similar to the Xtian/Muslim stance? When Hindus say "we agree that there is only one God - our God is the same as yours, so peace" the Abrahamics go - "No-oo-oo!! Haram!! There is only our one God, your God(s) is/are false!!"

Edit: Here's a verse or two from the BG, which offers food for thought:

Traigunya vishaya Vedha, nistraigunyo bhavaArjuna

Tr: The Vedas talk of the three-fold nature (of matter??). Try, rather, to go beyond this three-fold nature, o Arjuna.

and:

Yavaan artha udha-paane, sarvatah samplutodake
Tavaan sarveshu Vedeshu, Brahmanasya vijanatah

Tr: All the functions fulfilled by a pot of water, are automatically fulfilled by a huge reservoir of water. So too, all the functions of the Vedas, are automatically fulfilled to somebody who realizes the Brahman.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 16 Aug 2013 02:30

Maybe soon we will be asked not to compare religions as the purpose of this thread is different.

But saar, how does an average Buddhist perceive himself/herself? Do they perceive themselves as atheists, or agnostics? If the latter, then is there really a need to antagonize them by saying - "no, you are atheists, you don't accept the one true authority (Vedas)?" Why not bring them back under one dharmic umbrella with a little compromise? Isn't this rigid "Veda pramaana" stance very similar to the Xtian/Muslim stance? When Hindus say "we agree that there is only one God - our God is the same as yours, so peace" the Abrahamics go - "No-oo-oo!! Haram!! There is only our one God, your God(s) is/are false!!"

For them, it doesn't matter, you should read what Bodhidharma thinks of constructing temples, doing good deeds etc. You will be intrigued. For Buddhists, what matters is calming one's mind to know oneself or to know what one is not. Through that you will realize that everything is maya onlee as for them " there is no actor behind the acting, no thinker behind the thinking", there just is action. When one doesn't exist, there is no point of having attachments, having raaga-dhwesha....when your actions dont have an "I" your actions wont have consequences, hence not subject to karmic cycle.

The nature of Buddhist teaching will not permit them to accept God. Gods might exists, even Yama is the same for them, but not GodHead.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 16 Aug 2013 03:10

*The* Bodhidharma, the one who established the Shaolin Temple in China? If so, I'm guessing that he was pro-temple-building

.

No point getting into a religion comparison, at least in this thread.

As for Ramakrishna, he is said to have personally practiced Christianity and Islam, and proved that they are also valid paths to God. He is also said to have soundly rejected the "original sin" doctrine of Christianity. He and Vivekananda both. The reaction to that doctrine was - "if you think of yourselves as sinners all the time, you will surely become sinners." My guess is that Sri RK simply practiced the tenets of Christ - not the proselytization, confrontational monotheism, holier-than-thou Church nonsense. Likewise with Islam. He even declared that he was willing to eat beef, when practicing Islam, something which his disciples talked him out of. Again, my guess is that he focused on Allah, on Islamic dharma, certainly not on Jee-haa-rd! or death to infidels. At the end of a few days of practicing Islamic dharma, he is said to have witnessed a bright light, GodHead incarnate, and thus to have verified that Islam was a true path to God. TIFWIW.

Edit: Vivekananda also later rejected the "vicarious atonement" doctrine that is so prominent in Xtianity. When Sri RK was suffering from throat cancer, a lot of his disciples started saying that the master had "taken on their sins" for them. Vivekananda soundly condemned this.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 16 Aug 2013 03:29

My guess regarding Sri.RK is this. He took the tenets even in those books which align to SD teachings like for example "love your neighbor like you love yourself". Now such a route will always will lead to Godhead. On the other hand any teaching that is taught in those books not aligned to Vedas is debatable if it still or doesn't...we can only guess perhaps.

Shaolin temple was a monastery to begin with, later they might have called it a temple. Bodhidharma was sent to China so the emperor of a southern province(I m not good with names) knowing the arrival of Buddhist monk welcomes him. In the court, he tells Bodhidharma of all the good work he did, how many temples he had constructed, how many roads he had built, how much of dhana-dharma he did and then he asks Bodhidharma, "Sir, now please tell me how much of merit I have gained through my good deeds?". Then Bodhidharma answers "you gained no merit". Irritated and confused he asks " who are you? That you think you can answer me thus?!". To that Bodhidharma answers, " I don't know".

It is said that in his short answer, he had summarized the crux of Buddhism.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 16 Aug 2013 22:36

From L&M thread vnmshyam wrote:
I have a different take on this..

Shri Ram might have been a Maryada Purushottam, but that did not make Sita very happy. Did it? Despite going through Agni pariksha, she ended up being sent away. Shri Krishna, on the other hand had many women in his life and kept ALL of them happy. Big difference.

Maybe, the 'bachelor' part is mis-interpreted. He may have been considered as not belonging to a single person ( as in belongs to many ) == bachelor ( who also does not belong to a single person ).

Is Sri Krishna a Brahmachari?, gurus please correct me if I am wrong:

There are 2-3 stories that are told to prove that Sri Krishna is a Akhand Brahmachari. One of the best one people talk about is about Ashwatthama releasing Brahma-astra to slay the fetus of Uthara, only a true Brahmachari could prevent the foeticide through the Brahma-astra. Then Sri Krishna says :
Yathime Brahmacharyam Syath (roughly, If I have performed the oath of Brahmacharyam )
Satyam Cha Avyahatham Mayi ( and if I have told only truths)
Dhena Jeevathu Balaka (give the balaka his life)

And revives the fetus back to life.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Aug 2013 03:02

Brahmacharya doe snot necessarily mean celibacy or abstinence. The latter are tools for those who find it necessary to prevent distraction.

From other sources, are we really sure that he did not sadden any woman at all?

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 17 Aug 2013 06:56

fanne wrote:Gurus, pranam in advance...
Here is my query. I have been struggling with fate vs karma question for long. Recently I attended a lecture by a learned guy (who also happens to be a politician), where among many other thing, he mentioned an episode from Mahabharat (and the Sanskrit lines to go with that) -- When Krishna has completed Bhagvat Gita, Arjuna is convinced to fight, he poses this question to Krishna - Lord, since anyway everyone has to die (or already dead), and Dharma is on my side, why not the very next moment, kill these people and make Pandvas the king (as this is the outcome anyways). The Lord then says, giving phala without the associated Karma is not in his control or power or something like that..
Does anyone know about the source and the real Sanskrit words for it? It is not in Gita, maybe some other text?
Any help is highly appreciated.

Fanne ji

My 2 cents.

Check out Bhagavad Gita18:14.

Onself, one's goal, one's qualifications and tools, various means (diversification) adopted to achieve the Goal.. 4 of them

And 'Daivam' - Fate is the fifth. Assigning equal weightage to each of these 5, Karma~80%, Fate - 20%

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 17 Aug 2013 16:31

OT and just thinking aloud here

Any 'historical' dating done on Hindu kathaa about Indra leaving his throne after appointing a king in his place, who died of old age; and since Indra hasn't returned therefore there is no Indra on throne in this age of man and so on. Did this occur before or after Mahabharat, just being curious here is all.

----add--+
Mahaabhaarata mentions Indra at a few places.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 17 Aug 2013 16:45

First time i am hearing this story

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 21 Aug 2013 23:39

Bji, isn't the definition of Brahmacharya the severest as far Hinduism is concerned? what I mean is before marriage the brahmachari is supposed to be celibate. May be the same definition applies to Sri Krishna? also read somewhere that he was considered Brahmachari in spite of his many "wives" is that he remained completely detached, which was possible only because be was Ishwara.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 21 Aug 2013 23:44

Nilesh ji, something interesting for you (May be you already know it):
Sri Malladi Chandrasekhara Sastry garu thinks that Arundhati wasn't known as a star during Ramayana days because MahaRishi vashista was the guru of Sri.Rama and he too didn't attain the nakshatra status.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 22 Aug 2013 06:49

venug wrote:Nilesh ji, something interesting for you (May be you already know it):
Sri Malladi Chandrasekhara Sastry garu thinks that Arundhati wasn't known as a star during Ramayana days because MahaRishi vashista was the guru of Sri.Rama and he too didn't attain the nakshatra status.

Arundhati was indeed known as a star in Ramayana times. I will see if I can find a reference from Ramayana. In any case, Vasistha- the family priest of King Dasharatha is not Vasistha known in many famous stories. Same is the case with Vishwamitra of Ramayana times. Rather both of them were descendants of Famous Vasistha and Vishwamitra respectively.

------------------
You may also know that there were Vasistha, Vishwamitra and Valmiki in Mahabharata times.. .all descendants of previous Vasistha, Vishwamitra, and Valmiki.

----------
I have estimated the time of famous Vishwamitra who was connected with Time of Trishanku and/or responsible for creating so called 'Prati -Srushthi", as part of my work on dating of Ramayana.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Aug 2013 09:02

venug wrote:Bji, isn't the definition of Brahmacharya the severest as far Hinduism is concerned? what I mean is before marriage the brahmachari is supposed to be celibate. May be the same definition applies to Sri Krishna? also read somewhere that he was considered Brahmachari in spite of his many "wives" is that he remained completely detached, which was possible only because be was Ishwara.

Remaining "detached" while doing "it". Celibacy is the easy way out to ensure "Detachment"- and has been made into a big heroic thing, that possibly covers for lots of unmentionable stuff. But denying satisfaction ensures "detachment"? Don;t think so - from the eyes of many of the "holy" men I have seen. Denial simply is a device for the corruption of the mind for the majority.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 22 Aug 2013 09:09

Lakshman was considered a brahmachari, despite being married. The years in the forest without his wife's companionship counted as celibacy. So much so, that when it came time to face Indrajit, Rama could not do it. It required a brahmachari to face the master of illusion, Meghnad.

But the other celebrated brahmacharis were completely celibate, and unmarried as well - Hanuman, Narada, Bhishma.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 22 Aug 2013 09:11

Oh - mention is made of a son of Hanuman. However, this came about when a fish unwittingly swallowed Hanuman's seed and gave birth to a boy.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 22 Aug 2013 11:11

sudarshan wrote:Lakshman was considered a brahmachari, despite being married. The years in the forest without his wife's companionship counted as celibacy. So much so, that when it came time to face Indrajit, Rama could not do it. It required a brahmachari to face the master of illusion, Meghnad.

But the other celebrated brahmacharis were completely celibate, and unmarried as well - Hanuman, Narada, Bhishma.

I love this thread.

sudarshan ji,

brahm-aacharan cannot be restricted to hex only. The overall package is important. Though there is nothing to doubt w.r.t. Lakshman's brahm-aacharan.

Bhagwaan at times take a back seat for the benefit of the bhakta. The Bhakta does not know when exactly hence the uncertainity. Hence also the possibility of presence/absence of hex being pushed as some kind of big deal for this worldly/other worldly gains.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 22 Aug 2013 15:43

Remaining "detached" while doing "it". Celibacy is the easy way out to ensure "Detachment"- and has been made into a big heroic thing, that possibly covers for lots of unmentionable stuff. But denying satisfaction ensures "detachment"? Don;t think so - from the eyes of many of the "holy" men I have seen. Denial simply is a device for the corruption of the mind for the majority.

Bji, pl pardon my improper wording. I am not very precise with words. But what I meant by "remaining detached" may be that someone who performs a deed without a notion of self. Not exactly to mean denying satisfaction. I cannot define the state as I myself never could perform anything close to it. But I can only surmise that satisfaction is when the person "takes part" in the deed with the notion of "I am doing it" . For Paramatma, or people of that plane perhaps it is possible to not to have the notion of "I" doing a deed, not necessarily of sexual nature.

And I am not also advocating celibacy is good nor I am rejecting the idea, for I don't know. I merely mentioned what is said of why Sri Krishna was considered a Brahmachari. But grihasthashrama encouraged healthy union between a husband and wife. It was given more importance than Brhamacharya and even Sanyasa. As grishasthashrama is the backbone which supports the society in general and even considered difficult to undertake to the path the realization of Paramatma no? if anything grihasthashrama is given a heroic stature. A Bhrahmachari is asked to remain celibate only to ensure that he remains focused while he learns the basics of vedas and scriptures while remaining in gurukula...once complete, he too can take up a woman as wife.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 22 Aug 2013 17:34

Nilesh ji, thanks. I didn't know about the existence of more than one Vashista and Vishwamitras. Very interesting, but just adds to confusion.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 22 Aug 2013 19:41

ravi_g wrote: I love this thread.

sudarshan ji,

brahm-aacharan cannot be restricted to hex only. The overall package is important. Though there is nothing to doubt w.r.t. Lakshman's brahm-aacharan.

Bhagwaan at times take a back seat for the benefit of the bhakta. The Bhakta does not know when exactly hence the uncertainity. Hence also the possibility of presence/absence of hex being pushed as some kind of big deal for this worldly/other worldly gains.

Yes, Bhagwaan does take a back seat, but he always does so with some pretext. Everything he does in this material universe will conform to the law of karma. So the pretext for letting Lakshman take on Meghnad was - you have observed brahmacharya, so you can do it.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 23 Aug 2013 00:13

Sri MC garu hints at 3 Buddha avataras, not two. I will try to get references. He is of the view that Shiva purana mentions one such avatara, then Sri.Rama mentions one, the latest one is the Gautama in kalayuga. He says that this avatara is to do away with bad practices that set into Vedic practices. He says that Buddha merely concerned himself with human suffering than Moksha itself and that it was later that Buddhism diverged from Santana Dharma hence became nastika tradition. Just thought of sharing.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Aug 2013 03:17

venug wrote:
Remaining "detached" while doing "it". Celibacy is the easy way out to ensure "Detachment"- and has been made into a big heroic thing, that possibly covers for lots of unmentionable stuff. But denying satisfaction ensures "detachment"? Don;t think so - from the eyes of many of the "holy" men I have seen. Denial simply is a device for the corruption of the mind for the majority.
Bji, pl pardon my improper wording. I am not very precise with words. But what I meant by "remaining detached" may be that someone who performs a deed without a notion of self. Not exactly to mean denying satisfaction. I cannot define the state as I myself never could perform anything close to it. But I can only surmise that satisfaction is when the person "takes part" in the deed with the notion of "I am doing it" . For Paramatma, or people of that plane perhaps it is possible to not to have the notion of "I" doing a deed, not necessarily of sexual nature.

And I am not also advocating celibacy is good nor I am rejecting the idea, for I don't know. I merely mentioned what is said of why Sri Krishna was considered a Brahmachari. But grihasthashrama encouraged healthy union between a husband and wife. It was given more importance than Brhamacharya and even Sanyasa. As grishasthashrama is the backbone which supports the society in general and even considered difficult to undertake to the path the realization of Paramatma no? if anything grihasthashrama is given a heroic stature. A Bhrahmachari is asked to remain celibate only to ensure that he remains focused while he learns the basics of vedas and scriptures while remaining in gurukula...once complete, he too can take up a woman as wife.

Literally - if deparsed - Brahmacharya, has everything to do with "Brahma" - practising, "towards", moving-towards [second root implying "movement/speed/motion"] Brahma. So it is more about realizing/understanding/quest-for "Brahma" than particulars about ahem ahem, marriage, which stage of social engagement with biology comes first or last, ityadi. Formulae to be applied to all people to fit them into neat little boxes, coloured and locked by neat little rules and prescriptions, are perhaps inevitable in any large society - but is more a result of state formation processes, and the concerns of a ruling regime in control over social and interpersonal interactions of impact on the regime's needs.

Most societies place a great deal of obsession on controlling sexuality of both men and women, not because of any special love for them - but because of cold calculations on how sexuality could subvert state's grip on individual sublimation into the collective, or the power of sexuality harnessed for mobilization [for war/slavery] towards expansion, as well as the need to reproduce economic and military labour on which the regime's power is based.

Agreed, and also suggested before that the celibacy has been introduced as a mechanism to ensure lesser distraction. But this is like the harem mentality and theory. Trying to protect something assumed vulnerable and valuable from external attacks. If people cannot realize the purpose behind adopting celibacy as a tool - celibacy becomes more important than questing Brahma. This in turn could be another layer of a problem as it could become a psychological crutch to suppress and repress, merely hide, something that is constantly trying to burst out. Neither harnessing, nor eradicating.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 23 Aug 2013 19:30

Bji, Regarding Brahmacharya, your exposition is indeed nice, it is illuminating.

But regarding the state trying to controlling sexuality, I have doubts with regards to Indian context. When pramaanas are given based on Vedic corpus and/or smritis, I am not debating on the merits of it, but where was any state to dictate on the population in those times? may be it is true with regards to other regions and religions outside of India...but do you think Sanatana Dharma's rules on sexuality were still a control mechanism?

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 23 Aug 2013 20:07

B ji, just trying to put forth why I think Celibacy was advocated:
The whole concept of SD moksha concept rests on the premise the Vedas are the final authority and they are untouchable. The celibacy requirement is imposed as a requirement because the senses are like horses and they lead us astray when you want to focus on GodHead responsible for liberation. It is not only just sex that will lead us astray, but any indulgence, I might not be a womaniser, but if I love to gamble say, that too will keep my mind preoccupied. The subtle state of mind that is deemed necessary to grasp the concept of GodHead is disturbed hence the paramapadam can never be attained with avocations that take one's focus away from the subtle state of mind. Among those avocations, sex causes a strong distration because of dopamine effect, the feel good effect is so strong that it is very easy for the mind to wander, that too during a stage when the person is young and needs to understand the very foundation of vedic culture ie the Vedas and treatises. When the crux is not understood due to distractions, no point in spending time with the gurus for years. During brahmacharya even sleeping on the mattresses is forbidden(this is true for Buddhist disciples), you are required to bathe in cold water etc. All these are made mandatory to remove oneself from kama-karmas(need not be just sex). Great amount of importance is given to Vedas - the source head of knowledge, hence the seeker of such knowledge needs to have a disciplined life. Chaos (state of no return, more like caught in a whirlwind of passion in this case)is difficult to control once it sets in, prevention is better than cure. May be this is the reason for advocating celibacy among other DON'T dos for a brahmachari?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Aug 2013 09:25

venug wrote:Bji, Regarding Brahmacharya, your exposition is indeed nice, it is illuminating.

But regarding the state trying to controlling sexuality, I have doubts with regards to Indian context. When pramaanas are given based on Vedic corpus and/or smritis, I am not debating on the merits of it, but where was any state to dictate on the population in those times? may be it is true with regards to other regions and religions outside of India...but do you think Sanatana Dharma's rules on sexuality were still a control mechanism?

It is often difficult to separate out the "principle" or lakshya from the "method" or "path" towards that lakshya - within the broad spectrum brush of what is understood and passed off as "dharma". However sashtrakaars seem to have been aware of the problem. Most law makers writing on social mores - and therefore including the ones on sexuality etc, do mention the difference between shastra-sammata and raajan-pratisthita or deshachaar.

Bharatya thinking on sexuality was not a matter of divine revelation or constant in time - hence it was clearly in the domain of man-made laws. Two examples come to mind, the RV sloka on Yama turning Yami's ahem ahem approach away. Yama clearly mentions that bro-sis thing was perhaps acceptable or practised by some in the "past" [past from the time Yama is talking] but no longer acceptable [for him]. So here Yama is acknowledging that sexuality from the social viewpoint has changed over time. This therefore could not be the "anitya" unchangeable/core aspect of dharma.

The second is the Brihadaranyaka citation of Uddalak-Aruni son Swetaketu's institution of marriage. He did this on the basis of his own resentment as a child of his mom being asked out on a date by another man [not his father] and that his mom agrees and goes out. His dad explains that it was the norm for women not to be "owned" and they were "free to roam". Swetaketu does not like this and determines to institute contractual monogamy when he "grows up" == "has his own school and following".

Both aspects have been retained in our texts and not edited out like the Nicean deletion of memes. Why? The writers/composers wanted us to know that this was a social aspect to be modified and adapted according to the needs and perceptions of prevalent society and not an un-negotiable, never changing aspect.

Think of how the MB ladies are forced to undergo pregnancies by different men not necessarily of their choice or husbands - by their seniors, both men and women higher up in the hierarchy, for the needs of the system or the group. Bharatya daarshaniks have always tried to emphasize the core as quest for ever increasing knowledge and understanding of everything - especially the universe and its physical and possibly supra-physical basis. Everything else becomes part of evolution in social terms and as a supporting mechanism for the core quest. Hence prescription of less distraction etc.

But we should not make this method or "path" the lakshya. When the ratha with the idol is pulled by delirious bhaktas - the rope thinks it is the deva, the chariot thinks it is the deva, the idol thinks it is the deva - the real deva smiles within himself.

One of the current troubles with "Hindu" practise of the more spectacular organized, almost church like dhakka-ninada type of frenzy is the loss of that original simple message of the priority being the quest for knowledge and understanding. Other aspects are simply to support that quest. What might seem as helpful for one person might not be helpful for others, and unnecessary, or appropriate for one time with its technology and social level and inappropriate for another setting. Hence our shaastras show adaptive attitude towards such changes in social practise.

We have been trying to defend ourselves against the text revelatory religions by becoming more like themselves - claiming similar unchangeable revelations forever fixed in time. This shows that the Abrahamic has already won - since we strive to hold ourselves to their clamoured values, and feel ashamed if we cannot show similar rigid unchangeable claims.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Aug 2013 09:56

venug wrote:B ji, just trying to put forth why I think Celibacy was advocated:
The whole concept of SD moksha concept rests on the premise the Vedas are the final authority and they are untouchable. The celibacy requirement is imposed as a requirement because the senses are like horses and they lead us astray when you want to focus on GodHead responsible for liberation. It is not only just sex that will lead us astray, but any indulgence, I might not be a womaniser, but if I love to gamble say, that too will keep my mind preoccupied. The subtle state of mind that is deemed necessary to grasp the concept of GodHead is disturbed hence the paramapadam can never be attained with avocations that take one's focus away from the subtle state of mind. Among those avocations, sex causes a strong distration because of dopamine effect, the feel good effect is so strong that it is very easy for the mind to wander, that too during a stage when the person is young and needs to understand the very foundation of vedic culture ie the Vedas and treatises. When the crux is not understood due to distractions, no point in spending time with the gurus for years. During brahmacharya even sleeping on the mattresses is forbidden(this is true for Buddhist disciples), you are required to bathe in cold water etc. All these are made mandatory to remove oneself from kama-karmas(need not be just sex). Great amount of importance is given to Vedas - the source head of knowledge, hence the seeker of such knowledge needs to have a disciplined life. Chaos (state of no return, more like caught in a whirlwind of passion in this case)is difficult to control once it sets in, prevention is better than cure. May be this is the reason for advocating celibacy among other DON'T dos for a brahmachari?

Venug -garu,
I am not disagreeing with the practises - I saw much of it in my roaming days. But the danger that I see now everywhere, and something I noted even then - was that for most people, the overt practice of celibacy or abstinence becomes a ritual glory overshadowing the real purpose. So that most of the time is spent on carefully observing oneself as to whether ritual pollution from celibacy norm was taking place. That is a fearful existence, constantly scared.

For many, it becomes a fragile shield to control their uncontrollable urges - which in turn comes out through very twisted fumes - like perhaps MKG's sleeping naked without sex with niece or other young women under same sheet.

Sorry, that disgusts me just as church or mullah perversions do, while I am saddened by the loss of the original simple principle. I am reminded of that old story about two monks coming to a river to cross. A young woman asks them to carry her across. The younger monk refuses but the older one agrees and carries her across on his back. Then he sets her down on the otherside and the woman and the monks go their different ways. In the evening when the monks stop for the day, the younger one finally bursts out in accusation - how could the older monk transgress celibacy rules [no touching included]?!! The older monk laughs surprised - "oh I put her down on the river bank - and you are still carrying her around?"

By getting this obsessed about celibacy is simply a mirror reflection of the paranoid obsession about sex shown by the western world. Sex and sexuality becomes the overwhelming shadow over all aspects of life. The extreme theist and atheist are both obsessed about God. One in the yes form and the other in the no form. Same seems to be happening with sex and sexuality.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 25 Aug 2013 19:42

^^^Brihaspati ji,

Well said. Om. Mera Naman.

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 25 Aug 2013 23:50

A Krishna exclusive

On Gokulashtami, August 28, a teacher in Nainital will finish the penultimate chapter of his epic, centred on the Mahabharata’s favourite swashbuckler.

“While the character of Lord Rama has much to do with propriety and perfection, Krishna has a unique universality. With all the human weaknesses, prowess and sensibilities that he is credited with, he has always been beyond time and place. His character always appears to be full of dramatic potential and possibilities when compared to that of Lord Rama. I am surprised, at times, that poets like Valmiki, Kamban, Tulsidas and others did not create a full-length epic based on his life like they did with Rama’s,” says Mahesh ‘ashant’, a teacher, who lives in a remote village close to the small town of Bhowali, some 10 km downhill from Nainital.

http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazi ... 048172.ece

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Sep 2013 05:45

http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazi ... epage=true

Wiring in the Mahabharata