sada at ANVIL.NRL.NAVY.MIL
Mon Jul 13 06:38:06 CDT 1998
>> I did not want to get into this topic, since I know nothing about the vedic
>> rituals nor I care to know about them since my mind is not tuned to that
>For someone not interested in rituals you certainly have lots of
>opinions about them.
The rest of my post actually justifies why the lack of interest too!
I see in this and in the subsequent posts that you have lot of
disagreements with my post. I will certainly read them and contemplate on
them. Thanks for your detailed input.
The examples I gave were intended to drive across the point of the
discussion and not intended for extrapulation beyond their intent. Anyway
we both atleast agree that the whole discussion is itself within the realm
of maya. My understanding of the Geeta and Bhagavaan Shankaraa's texts
obviously differs from yours. I donot see any further need for my
discussion on this topic otherthan to state that I agree to disagree with
your interpretation of my post. God bless you.
>> Rituals are meant for purification of the mind. If that is not the main
>> objective and it is for securing or obtaining some tangible grosser
>> result such as putra kaameshTi for example (where kaama rather than
>> nishkaama is the governing factor) then the ritual has to be performed as
>> per the rules and regulations laid down by the manuals i.e. scriptures,
>> since for these scriptures are the only pramana. The result is the proof
>Performance of the rituals _correctly_ without any _expectation_ leads
>to chitta shuddhi. Doing whatever one pleases, claiming "no
>expectations" is not allowed. The gItA is perfectly clear on this.
>> of the pudding. It is like the lifting of the weights as a daily ritual -
>> has to be done following the rules - other wise one can get hurt and badly
>So to carry your analogy further, if lifting of weights is for gaining
>muscle, then rules have to be followed. But, if lifting of weights is
>without any expectation, one can do whatever one pleases? The latter
>will also get one hurt badly. Probably the peeple standing nearby also.
>> But when nishkaama is the basis of the ritual then we are dealing with the
>According to Sri shankara purification of the mind falls under karma.
>Reading the naishhkarmya siddhi would make this clear. So your arguments
>do not apply.
>> Most of the puja is recommended for nishkaama - for example the chanting of
>> vishuNusahasranaam - it is done with the statement - shree mahaa vishnu
>> priityartham .... aham idam karishye -- It is done not to fulfill some
>> desires of mine but for pleasure of the Lord. Since Lord is always in a
>> happy state, he does not need our prayers to keep him happy. - (if he does
>> then he is in real trouble!). He is puurnam, full and complete Then the
>> outcome is my own mental growth, in trying to eliminate the impurities -
>> mamakaara and ahankaara - In that case mantra hiina, kriyaa hiina etc. etc.
>> all are excused since the goal is only the mental purity. There is no
>Instead of saying vishhNu why not say bitsnu and instead of hari, why
>not change it to bury then? One need not buy even the stotra book, we
>can sing Led Zepellin songs found on the internet instead. I am aware of
>the Spice girls comment which got Jaldhar into trouble, my intention in
>this example is to show that reasonings given by Sadananda can lead to
>some absurd conclusions, if we carry the same reasoning a bit further.
>My intention is not to be sarcastic.
>> question of burning the fingers here since the result is subtler, provided
>> one does best within the means but with full devotion . Kartik example and
>> discussion pertains to this realm. As the story goes in her devotion
>> Vidura's wife forgot what she was doing and ended up feeding Krishna with
>> banana skin and throwing the pulp away. Krishna enjoyed more since what he
>> was enjoying was the devotion not the banana.
>> patram pushpam palam toyam yo me bhktyaa payacchati|
>> tadaham bhaktupakritam ashnaami priyataatmanaH|
>> He is ready to settle for any thing you give, as long as it is given with
>> devotion! There is nothing one can really give him since everything is his
>> only. What is given is only my notion that it is mine.
>This is all specious reasonings.
>On a couple of occassions, when I was invited for dinner, I found the
>dinner perfectly foul. But, I gulped down the stuff and praised the
>persons for their cooking upon which I was forced to eat more by the
>hosts, which I had to. I am sure many others would have had a similar
>expereince sometime. It is perfectly a human emotion to be polite to
>ones' hosts. When human beings themselves do such, why would not Lord
>Krishna, the definition of mercy?
>Now that I have stated my experience about eating some foul dinners and
>praising the hosts, and suppose you decide to invite me for dinner. Does
>the fact that I gulped down foul food on certain occassions give you the
>license to cook foul food and serve it to me? I hope not!!
>In fact the story makes it clear that we should not do whatever we
>please. It says _INSPITE_ of the transgressions Lord Krishna made an
>exception because she was an _exceptional_ bhaktin. It is not license
>for all and sundry to imitate her. It was not her intention to
>transgress rules, BTW. The story is arthavAda for praising bhakti to
>Lord Krishna, not license for doing karma in haphazard manner.
>> Hence the ritual and the purpose has to be understood correctly. There was
>Certainly. But understanding the ritual leads to correct performance of
>it and not otherwise.
>> Krishna says in the 9th Ch.
>> yat karoshi yadashnaasi yajjuhoshi dadaasi yat|
>> yat tapasyasi kounteya, tat kurushva madarpaNam||
>> Whatever you do whatever you eat whatever you give and whatever austerities
>> you perform offer that to Me.
>He also says that smR^iti and shruti are his direct commands.
>> In the final analysis what is offered is the ego and purification of the
>> mind follows.
>> If the ritual is intended for purification of the mind then do the best
>> within the means and with the right frame of mind since mind is more
>> important than anything else - bhaktyaa. Everything else is secondary.
>Not so. As I said, Chitta shuddhi itself is a result of _correct_
>performance of karmas _without_ expectation, not doing whatever one
>pleases "without expectation".
>> But in the final analysis even these rituals have limited relevance. Hence
>"limited relevance"?!! For anyone who has not attained chitta shuddhi it
>is of great relevance.
>> my bias. I want to end with Sankara's shlakas from vivekachuuDaamaNi:
>Excellent verses. Unfortunately, they have ABSOLUTELY no relevance to
>this situation. The original question of Ravi was about how to perform
>pUjA, not how to renounce it. This is like saying to a person who is
>hungry, "Tibetan monks do not eat by practice of certain yogic
>disciplines, so it is more convenient to learn this technique and
>renounce eating. Since this can be done, we can also eat arsenic laced
>> paThantu shaastraaNi yajantu devataan,
>> kurvantu karmaaNi bhajantu devataaH,|
>> aatmaikya bhodhena vinaa vimuktiH
>> nasidhyati brahma sataatarepi||
>> and further he says:
>> na yogena na saakhyena karmaNaa no na vidyayaa
>> brahmaatmaika bodhena mokshaH sidhyati naanyathaa||
>> I think Vaidya Sundaram has provided the meaning for these slokas for those
>> who are interested. One can perform as many rituals as one wants, but in
>> the final analysis there is no liberation without getting established in
>> the advaitic teaching.
>> K. Sadananda
>> Code 6323
>> Naval Research Laboratory
>The above verses are supposed to result in the reader renouncing the
>world. Sri Shankara makes it quite clear that he wants his disciples to
>embrace phycical sannyAsa also. Why? Otherwise it will lead to the
>situation where someone will make remarks as given below
>1. Renounce karma-s, especially when it takes effort to learn the
>methodologies. Or do them in whatever manner one pleases.
>2. Use shankara's quotes about renunciation of karmas to denounce people
>doing karmas, but when renunciation of family, job etc is called for,
>those statements will be conveniently ignored. Or they will be
>Height of absurdity.
>Many here seem to have minterpreted why "mental renunciation" is
>emphasized more in certain texts like Yoga Vashistha or by Sri Ramana.
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list