[Advaita-l] vedic yajna
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 4 04:45:09 CST 2011
Namaste Sri Sarma and Sri Vidyasankara
You have got the wrong picture of this discussion thread.
The simple point I have made is forget what Rishis did in the ancient
times but follow Smrutis like Parashara Smruti meant for Kali Yuga.
Sri Sriram gave a reference for beef prohibition from this Parashara
Smruti. The people arguing with me say Sruti Vakya meaning will be the
same in all Yugas and we have to take the direct meaning. I am saying
we have to do revision of Sruti Vakya meaning depending on our
circumstances. In today's circumstances we cannot take direct meaning
of Sruti like in ancient times. I am agreeing Veda Vakyas for subjects
in pure Vedanta are not depending on time but Dharma is dependent on
time. We have to make adjustments in the Dharma connected Veda Vakyas.
In Mahabharata this principle of changing Dharma is told. In very very
ancient times there was not a marraige concept. Any man was going with
any woman. This was the Dharma this was the Achara. But one Rishi's
son named Swetaketu saw his mother going with some other man. He
became angry and established the present practice a woman should be
devoted to the husband. Read the story below and answer my question
below. It says how ancient practice can be changed by great Rishis.
What the Rishis say becomes Dharma from that time onwards.
(Sambhava Parva continued)
'But I shall now tell thee about the practices of
old indicated by illustrious Rishis, fully acquainted with every rule of
morality. O thou of handsome face and sweet smiles, women formerly were
not immured within houses and dependent on husbands and other relatives.
They used to go about freely, enjoying themselves as best as they liked.
O thou of excellent qualities, they did not then adhere to their husbands
faithfully, and yet, O handsome one, they were not regarded sinful, for
that was the sanctioned usage of the times. That very usage is followed
to this day by birds and beasts without any (exhibition of) jealousy.
That practice, sanctioned by precedent, is applauded by great Rishis. O
thou of taper thighs, the practice is yet regarded with respect amongst
the Northern Kurus. Indeed, that usage, so lenient to women, hath the
sanction of antiquity. The present practice, however (of women's being
confined to one husband for life) hath been established but lately. I
shall tell thee in detail who established it and why.'
"It hath been heard by us that there was a great Rishi of the name of
Uddalaka, who had a son named Swetaketu who also was an ascetic of merit.
O thou of eyes like lotus-petals, the present virtuous practice hath been
established by that Swetaketu from anger. Hear thou the reason. One day,
in the presence of Swetaketu's father a Brahmana came and catching
Swetaketu's mother by the hand, told her, 'Let us go.' Beholding his
mother seized by the hand and taken away apparently by force, the son was
greatly moved by wrath. Seeing his son indignant, Uddalaka addressed him
and said, 'Be not angry. O son! This is the practice sanctioned by
antiquity. The women of all orders in this world are free, O son; men in
this matter, as regards their respective orders, act as kine.' The
Rishi's son, Swetaketu, however, disapproved of the usage and established
in the world the present practice as regards men and women. It hath been
heard by us, O thou of great virtue, that the existing practice dates
from that period among human beings but not among beings of other
classes. Accordingly, since the establishment of the present usage, it is
sinful for women not to adhere to their husbands. Women transgressing the
limits assigned by the Rishi became guilty of slaying the embryo. And,
men, too, viol ting a chaste and loving wife who hath from her maidenhood
observed the vow of purity, became guilty of the same sin. The woman also
who, being commanded by her husband to raise offspring, refuses to do his
bidding, becometh equally sinful.'
Question- Now you have seen how Dharma changes by Rishis. Do we not
follow the above Rishi's rule today? Do we say in ancient times ladies
were very free to go with any man let them do the same now also?
Similarly, Parashara has said Beef is prohibited in Kali Yuga should
we not follow the rule? We should not refer ancient customs and follow
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan
<svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
> If Sruti enjoins action X upon certain persons, provided certain conditions
> are met, i.e. if Sruti provides the apUrva vidhi and also one or more of
> niyama, parisaMkhyA and adhikAra vidhi-s, smRti CAN further expand on
> what those conditions are. In order to cover instances when the specified
> conditions are NOT met, smRti can also enjoin something else, or specify
> yet other restrictions, etc. Anything said by smRti in these cases should be
> such that it does not contradict something else already known from Sruti.
> Also, smRti cannot impose a blanket prohibition of action X, irrespective
> of whether the Sruti specified conditions are satisfied or not, in direct
> contravention of what the Sruti says about it.
2011/12/4 D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ <dvnsarma at gmail.com>:
> This thread does not have a chance of ending. Even in the face all the
> that vadic rishis were meat eaters ( including beef) and did animal
> they will go on insisting that it is not so. Sometimes they see there are
> conspiracies out to malign their extraordinarily pure(!?) and hygienic
> (Every one of these has his own conception what that pure hindu religion
> While the popular culprits are western indologists, lately even the hindu
> are severely condemned as polluted with western ideas and
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list