PDA

View Full Version : Why Is Shrī Agni Called "Agni Vaishvānara"?



Aryavartian
01 January 2014, 06:38 AM
Namaste dear friends,could anyone tell me why Agni is called as Vaisvanara(universal man) in Vedic era texts?:)

Is this Vaisvanara same as the Purusha concept,which is also considered as a universal cosmic man?

A.

Sudas Paijavana
01 January 2014, 05:07 PM
Namaste dear friends,could anyone tell me why Agni is called as Vaisvanara(universal man) in Vedic era texts?:)

Is this Vaisvanara same as the Purusha concept,which is also considered as a universal cosmic man?

A.

Pranam-s,

In its most basic sense, "VaishvAnara" denotes three noble ideas:


The fire that is in all humans or all living beings.

The fire of all mankind.

The fire [altar] that is kept by those that abide by Vrata.



"[O' Shri Agni!!!] The universe depends upon thy power and might [that is] within the sea, within the heart, within all life...." (R.V.4.58.11)

Shri Agni has invincible power that is unlimited, that which has no beginning and no end; he is in the aerial ocean which is the eternal firmament of his all-pervading abode, and he presents himself in duality with Shri Indra as lightning (Shri Agni is known as Born of Thunder and Born of Rain for this very reason); Shri Agni belongs to all man/womankind, due to being VaishvAnara, and therefore he is within all life as the vital principle and heat of our desire, our waking and sleeping, and being indirectly represented in us as our spiritual dharma. This is why Shri Agni is known as VaishvAnara.

Another reason, which is currently of minute importance, is that Shri Agni was the common God of all those of ārya-dharma (Indic & pre-Zoroastrian Iranic tribes that were Yagna-centric/Yagna-oriented, hence the epithet: Vaishvānara - the Fire of the Men of Vedic Rites). In fact, Shri Agni was also an important God of the Paktha-s, who were Hindu/Vedic before becoming Zoroastrian, later Buddhist, now presently Muslim. One might say that Agni was important to the Zoroastrians, but this is misleading, because the Zoraostrians, though they venerated a fire, did not worship the proper fire. In Vedic Dharma, properness, specifics, and precision & accuracy are of utmost importance. Therefore, one can keep a fire and venerate a fire in the most of intensity for various religious preferences, but if it is not the proper Vedic fire, it is not Agni VaishvAnara in the socio-religio-historical sense, for Shri Agni is summoned through the correct and precise utterances of the Holy Rica-s:


"Unsatisfied, with speech devoid of vigor, scanty and frivolous and inconclusive, wherefore do they[1] address thee here, O' Shri Agni? Let these who have no weapons[2] suffer sorrow." (R.V.4.5.14)



1. They: those that do not abide by the Dharma of Yagya/Yagna; those that abide by different rites (a-vrata; e.g., Jains & Zoroastrians, etc.).



2. These who have no weapons: those that do not have the necessities or instruments to start nor conduct the Yagya to give oblations and please Shri Agni (e.g., the proper fire altar, the appropriate ladles, the correct Ghee).

However, this historical attitude by the Hindu Forefathers was selective, but at present understandable since those times had a different ethos and social atmosphere. The everlasting truth, though, is that Shri Agni as VaishvAnara is universal in the sense that he is to be praised by any devoted Hindu of any background, not just Indic and Iranic.

Agni, as per the Vedic VaishvAnara Hymns, is the same as the Upanishadic concept of BrahmAn. Shri Agni is the Universal Cosmic "man".

The following, as per my honest assessment, is the "Gayatri Mantra" of Shri Agni, though obviously not of gāyatri meter:


"...for our every thought, O' Agni, you are the ruler: you forever increase the wisdom of the pious/devoted [that come to seek you out]." (R.V.4.6.1)

Amrut
01 January 2014, 11:56 PM
Namste,

Sudas has given good unique explanation. A few inputs from me.

Vedic Yagya perspective:

Agni is the first God to be invoked. No Yagya can begin without Agnidev. Agnidev is the only deva who has access to all the planes, to all the loka-s. It is Agnideva who takes our offerings (havis - that which is offered in havan (Sudas correct me if I am wrong) including tridev.

Other perspective.

Agni (fire) is present in everything, in wood also, else it cannot burn, but in latent form. Hence Agni is said to be present everywhere. So Agnidev is also present everywhere, that is why Agnidev can take our offering to all Deva-s

Since the definition of Brahman is all-pervading, and Brahman cannot be described, hence it can only be given an approximation with equating it with something that is has similar characteristic e.g. akash and agni,

While AkASa represents the subtleness and omnipresence, agni too represents omnipresence. Hence Agnideva is called as VaiSnAvara.

Note: Agni is present everywhere is said by SureSvarAcArya in one of his vArtika-s.

OM Tat Sat.

Aryavartian
02 January 2014, 03:45 AM
Thanks Sri Sudas and Sri Amrut for the informative replies :)

I just did a search and came across this passage from Satapatha Brahmana:


This Agni Vaisvânara is no other than the Purusha; and, verily, whosoever thus knows that Agni Vaisvânara as Purusha-like, as established within the Purusha,

Satapatha Brahmana 10.6.1.11
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe43/sbe4371.htm

So i got my answer,Agni is indeed identified with Purusha.He is also identified with Prajapati(who is same as Purusha) or the self of Prajapati born from his mouth.

I think Agni was by far the most important Deva along with Indra during the Vedic age.

Even during Upanishadic era,we find verses like this claiming importance of Agni:


Among the Devas that Brahman existed as Agni

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.15
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15055.htm

Btw,Sri Sudas,


One might say that Agni was important to the Zoroastrians, but this is misleading, because the Zoraostrians, though they venerated a fire, did not worship the proper fire.

Zoroastrians view fire as a Yazata(divinity) see : http://www.avesta.org/angels.html

Search for "Atar".

Also,it is worth noting that the Zoroastrian fire priests are known as Athravans,very similar to Vedic Atharavana Rishi who was also specialized in fire cult.Perhaps the Zoroastrian priesthood derives from Rishi Atharvana.

Alter ego
06 January 2014, 01:22 AM
As of the Zoroastrians in regard to fire , they were fire worshipers and made no qualms about it .

Yazata is not angel , as Zoroastrians would want us believe but a god worthy of worship. Even Ahuramazda was called 'yazata' .Yazatas are not angels(This is a modern Zoroastrian concept-see below)

In avestan scriptures, all the holy fires were worshiped .


" We worship thee, the Fire, O Ahura Mazda's son! We worship the fire Berezi-savangha (of the lofty use), and the fire Vohu-fryana (the good and friendly), and the fire Urvazishta (the most beneficial and most helpful), and the fire Vazishta (the most supporting), and the fire Spenishta (the most bountiful), and Nairya-sangha the Yazad of the royal lineage, and that fire which is the house-lord of all houses and Mazda-made, even the son of Ahura Mazda, the holy lord of the ritual order, with all the fires. "

Yasna 17.11


Fire was called "Son of Mazda" . (Waters are his wives) Confer the worship of 7(or 3-ahavaniya/garhapatya/ Dakshinagni) fires in Vedic India. 7 rigvedic priests and 7 avestan zoatars.

When Zoroastrians came to India , they wrote a letter to chalukya king likening themselves to fire worshipers

सुर्यँ ध्यायंति ये वै हुतवहमनिलं भुमिमाकाशमाद्यं
तोयो सम्पंचतत्वं त्रिभुवनसदनं न्यासमंत्रैस्त्रिसन्ध्यं
श्री होरमिज्दं बहुगुणगरिमाणं तमेवम् कृपालुं
गौराः धीराः सुवीरा बहुबलनिलयास्ते वयं पारसीकं 1
[Those who meditate on the Sun, and make offerings to the Fire, Wind, Earth, Space and Water,
that is, to the five elements of the three-Worlds, through the nyAsa sandhyA-s thrice a day;
Who adore the merciful shrI ahuramAzdAh, the Lord of the Gods, of many virtues;
Those, (O rAjan,) we are, the pArasIka-s, bold, valiant, strong, and fair



Muslims called them atash-parest=fire worshipers.


When Christianity attacked z'ism , the English speaking z'ian elite from Bombay redefined their religion as monotheism(Much like Sikhism, arya samaj , brahma samaj did around the same time) .Hence the sudden denial of fire worship

Aryavartian
06 January 2014, 07:07 AM
Namaste everyone,i would like to discuss another aspect of Agni which is associated with rituals(Yajna).As we all know Agni is the most important deity in Yajna.As Amrut earlier said,no Yajna can be conducted without the use of Agni.

I specifically want to discuss about pashubandha or animal sacrifice, which is part of some Vedic Yajnas,described in various ritualistic Vedic texts.

My query is,are the pashus(animals) really killed and offered in Agni during Yajnas?As far as i know,the ritual procedures are as the following:


1)Binding the pashu to the sacrificial pillar(yupa).

2)Cleansing the pashu and anointing it with ghee or other ingredients.

3) Suffocating(not butchering!) the pashu with a noose and "quieting" it.

4) Purifying & cutting the "quieted" pashu up and offering various parts to the Gods through Agni.

Now,from the sources that i am aware of,there are five kind of pashus which are mainly used in Yajnas viz man,bull,horse,ram and he-goat....could these five pashus symbolize something esoteric?I have also read that vapa or omentum offering is important in pashubandha,could this also be symbolical?


I have came across certain enigmatic passages in Satapatha,Taittiriya,Aitareya and Panchavimsha Brahmanas,which states that the offering of cakes made up of grains(purodasha) is equal to the animal offering.Certain Yajnas conducted today involves symbolical animal sacrifices with cake baked in form of animals.See this image for example:

http://www.namboothiri.com/somayaagam_photos/namb_somayaagam_photo_19.jpg



But i don't know how do we tie the cake-animal to the yupa pillar, nor do i know how do we get the internal organs and vapa from it !!


Could someone please clarify my doubts?



With regards,
A.

Amrut
06 January 2014, 09:55 AM
Namaste,

I am not well versed with Veda-s. From my little knowledge I can share some of my views. The reply may not clarify your doubt, but they might be helpful.

Madhvacharya felt compassion for animals and hence he substituted Wheat floor for flesh. Hence there was decline in animal sacrifice. Of course Lord Buddha also opposed violence.

So the cake would mean something made up of floor. Yet the intention is what matters. You think of it as a pasu and then kill it, so in the mind there is hinsA.

Veda-s are for everybody. They cover people of all types of temperaments. Some say that vedic sacrifices are allowed to suit one type of people. Smiritis have 8 types of different marriages, that includes bAlavivAha, as Brahma VivAha. (refer Marriage (http://kamakoti.org/newlayout/template/hindudharma.html/18/1/hindu/Marriage) --> Eight Forms of Marriage (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part18/chap5.htm))

Another thing is that whatever is offered in Yagna is called as havis (havan) and whatever is directly offered is called as balI. Directly offered means that which is not offered in Yagna fire, but sprinkled in four directions like water or uncooked rice. They are also called balI

Another important factor is quantity. It is not that animal sacrifices should be done on a large scale.

Only a small part of flesh (vApa), which is not greater than the size of thumb, is taken as prasad, that too without adding any mAsAlA-s (spieces). Also the soma rasa is taken only in minimal qty. Prasad is generally not taken in large quantity. More you distribute, the more people can have it.

Regarding animal sacrifices, we give too much importance to this physical world, hence we feel sad for animal sacrifices. But insects, that harm us like cockroaches, etc, are often killed.

Animals, taht are sacrificed are blessed. Their souls may bypass some life forms and enter into the body of something that is closer to human birth. Yes they do undergo pain, but for devata-s who accept only a particular form and with whose blessings the whole ecosystems work properly, little sacrifices has to be done. In Kali yuga it is said that horse sacrifice is banned.

Out of 40 sanskar-s only a few have animal sacrifices that too they are not compulsory for every body. Certain things are optional. In ancient times, people were aware of their other subtle bodies and other loka-s. Hence they had a borader picture and a better understanding than us, who only have awareness of physical body.

Please find some links that may be useful

Is Sacrificial Killing Justified? (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap23.htm)

Hindu Dharma, Part 5 (http://kamakoti.org/newlayout/template/hindudharma.html/5/1/hindu/The+Vedas) - This contains some related topics like

Yajna or Sacrifice (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap16.htm), The Threefold Purpose of Yajna (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap18.htm), The Celestials and Mortals Help Each Other (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap19.htm), The Capacity to Work and the Capacity to Protect (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap20.htm), Rites for Celestials and Rites for Fathers (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap21.htm), The Purpose of Sacrifices (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap22.htm), Is Sacrificial Killing Justified? (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap23.htm), Animal Sacrifice in the Age of Kali (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap24.htm), The One Goal (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap25.htm), Those who conduct Sacrifces (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap26.htm)... To name a few

OM

Aryavartian
06 January 2014, 12:15 PM
Namaste Amrut,interesting reply.However,let me discuss a few points from your post.




So the cake would mean something made up of floor. Yet the intention is what matters. You think of it as a pasu and then kill it, so in the mind there is hinsA.

Well,the cake which is "killed" doesn't have any life.So how is that Himsa?We are only doing it symbolically.Even the pressing of Soma plants are referred as "killing" in Taittiriya Samhita 6.6.9.2




Another important factor is quantity. It is not that animal sacrifices should be done on a large scale.

I think it depends on what kind of Yajnas we are doing.Ashvamedha is the "king of sacrifices" which requires over 100 animals.


Only a small part of flesh (vApa), which is not greater than the size of thumb, is taken as prasad,

Vapa is not flesh :) Vapa is omentum,a yellow cheese like substance:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSREiK8wR1JjPbK8AdK408zEsC9ABLrwxkN_gZyAG1zfpo8Wvp7




Regarding animal sacrifices, we give too much importance to this physical world, hence we feel sad for animal sacrifices. But insects, that harm us like cockroaches, etc, are often killed.


Yes,exactly.We kill many tiny living beings like ants and mosquitoes knowingly or unknowingly everyday! I think absolute Ahimsa is impossible,if we try to practice absolute Ahimsa,we might end up as a Digambara Jaina.





Yes they do undergo pain,

I think the suffocation process involves no pain to the animal.Satapatha Brahmana says the breath of the victim should be united with the wind.There is no butchering or bloodshed during the Vedic sacrificial method(although,the animal would be cut up AFTER the suffocation).




Please find some links that may be useful

Is Sacrificial Killing Justified? (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap23.htm)

Hindu Dharma, Part 5 (http://kamakoti.org/newlayout/template/hindudharma.html/5/1/hindu/The+Vedas) - This contains some related topics like

Yajna or Sacrifice (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap16.htm), The Threefold Purpose of Yajna (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap18.htm), The Celestials and Mortals Help Each Other (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap19.htm), The Capacity to Work and the Capacity to Protect (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap20.htm), Rites for Celestials and Rites for Fathers (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap21.htm), The Purpose of Sacrifices (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap22.htm), Is Sacrificial Killing Justified? (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap23.htm), Animal Sacrifice in the Age of Kali (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap24.htm), The One Goal (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap25.htm), Those who conduct Sacrifces (http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap26.htm)... To name a few

OM

Thanks for the links :)

I have already read the first link.

I still can't figure out how we tie up the baked animal cake into the yupa in symbolical sacrifices....

Amrut
06 January 2014, 11:59 PM
Namaste A,

Thanks for clarification. What matters is the intention. When the intention is dropped i.e. ahimsA should be within the mind. No matter how much external purity you try to have, it does not mean that mind is free of desires.

ahimsA is the absence of violent thoughts. Symbolic interpretations help one drop external karma and enter into the realm of mind. Even in Tantra, first there are external rituals, then mixed, later only internal. you cannot expect people to simply give up what they are doing and completely change life style.
and ashvamega sacrifice is not a common thing.

When mind is free from ahimsA, Patanjali Yoga sutra says that in presence of such a saint, even hinsaka prANI carnivorious animals (temporarily) renounce their violent (killing) tendencies.

If you have desire and you are not allowed to fulfil it and you are not capable to renounce it, then what is to be done.

Sacrifices is not the final goal of veda-s. Mentioning them does not mean that it is compulsory to all. It only covers certain class of people.

Different instructions are given to people with different level of inner purity and mental make-up. thoughts itself are violence and are burden on Self. Without thoughts one experiences freedom. Seriously, mind remains fresh. thoughts drain energy and we experience fatigue.

If hari name is the only way out, then veda-s are not needed right? see we have to take things in a proper way.

One statement is not applicable to all throughout the life.

We are told that it is better to chant mantra-s and cook food for ourselves. This is to retain purity. Then there are sattvik foods, that help increase sattva guna.

But to a parivrajaka sanyAsin, this is not applicable. How knows he may receive his bhikshA from a prostitute. who knows if the food is cooked with chanting of mantra-s and that the oil used is not fish liver oil or maybe some non-veg is added in veg food. It is unrecognised and people ma not know that they are eating actually non-veg.

What a sanyAsin is supposed to do? will he fall from his spiritual heights?

He will simple surrender food to the Lord and his faith is so strong that the food will become sattvik. OR he may be able to overcome tamasik food and rise above it. He must have this capacity.

So rules are not applicable to all through the life. It all depends. therefore, we have guru-sishya parampara, one is to one face-t-face teaching.

When mind is at peace, you wont do any animal sacrifices, as the intention is gone and you wont also not substitute flesh with floor. You will focus on God that is in your heart.

Hari OM

Aryavartian
07 January 2014, 05:09 AM
Namaste dear Amrut,



Namaste A,

Thanks for clarification. What matters is the intention. When the intention is dropped i.e. ahimsA should be within the mind. No matter how much external purity you try to have, it does not mean that mind is free of desires.

ahimsA is the absence of violent thoughts. Symbolic interpretations help one drop external karma and enter into the realm of mind. Even in Tantra, first there are external rituals, then mixed, later only internal. you cannot expect people to simply give up what they are doing and completely change life style.
and ashvamega sacrifice is not a common thing.

When mind is free from ahimsA, Patanjali Yoga sutra says that in presence of such a saint, even hinsaka prANI carnivorious animals (temporarily) renounce their violent (killing) tendencies.

If you have desire and you are not allowed to fulfil it and you are not capable to renounce it, then what is to be done.

Sacrifices is not the final goal of veda-s. Mentioning them does not mean that it is compulsory to all. It only covers certain class of people.

Different instructions are given to people with different level of inner purity and mental make-up. thoughts itself are violence and are burden on Self. Without thoughts one experiences freedom. Seriously, mind remains fresh. thoughts drain energy and we experience fatigue.

If hari name is the only way out, then veda-s are not needed right? see we have to take things in a proper way.

One statement is not applicable to all throughout the life.

We are told that it is better to chant mantra-s and cook food for ourselves. This is to retain purity. Then there are sattvik foods, that help increase sattva guna.

But to a parivrajaka sanyAsin, this is not applicable. How knows he may receive his bhikshA from a prostitute. who knows if the food is cooked with chanting of mantra-s and that the oil used is not fish liver oil or maybe some non-veg is added in veg food. It is unrecognised and people ma not know that they are eating actually non-veg.

What a sanyAsin is supposed to do? will he fall from his spiritual heights?

He will simple surrender food to the Lord and his faith is so strong that the food will become sattvik. OR he may be able to overcome tamasik food and rise above it. He must have this capacity.

So rules are not applicable to all through the life. It all depends. therefore, we have guru-sishya parampara, one is to one face-t-face teaching.

When mind is at peace, you wont do any animal sacrifices, as the intention is gone and you wont also not substitute flesh with floor. You will focus on God that is in your heart.

Hari OM

What you said is applicable to the ones who follow jnana khanda and jnana marga.But there are extreme ritualists like Mimamsakas who follow karma khanda and karma marga,for them sacrifice is everything and they believe only way to attain Moksha is through sacrifices.

Aryavartian
10 January 2014, 02:25 AM
Namaste dear friends,here is an interesting read on how to "slay" a victim at the sacrifice.


Turn the animal's feet northwards. Make its eyes go to the Sun, dismiss its breath to the wind, its life to the air, its hearing to the directions, its body to the earth. In this way he(Hotr) connects it with these world. Take of the entire skin without cutting it. Before opening the navel tear out the omentum. Stop its breathing within (by stopping its mouth). Thus the Hotr puts breath in the animals. Make of its breast a piece like an eagle, of its arms (two pieces like) two hatchets, of its forearms (two pieces like) two spikes, of its shoulders (two pieces like) two kashyapas (tortoises), its loins should be unbroken (entire); make of its thighs (two pieces like) two shields, of the two kneepans (two pieces like) two oleander leaves; take out its twenty-six ribs according to their order; preserve every limb of its in its integrity. Thus he benefits all its limbs. Dig a ditch in the earth to hide its excrements.



Link: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=KYYfe_WCBTUC&pg=PA87&dq=Take+of+the+entire+skin+without+cutting+it+aitareya&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_qzPUoy0Ao6MrAfn2ICoCQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Take%20of%20the%20entire%20skin%20without%20cutting%20it%20aitareya&f=false

Now,how the heck would one take off the entire skin of the animal without cutting it?.:confused: How can we make breasts(the softest part) in shape of an eagle?:eek: How do we make the shoulders like tortoises?:headscratch:

I'm starting to think that the Vedic sacrifices were purely symbolical.:rolleyes:

Avyaydya
12 January 2014, 09:52 PM
Now,from the sources that i am aware of,there are five kind of pashus which are mainly used in Yajnas viz man,bull,horse,ram and he-goat....could these five pashus symbolize something esoteric?I have also read that vapa or omentum offering is important in pashubandha,could this also be symbolical?

I have came across certain enigmatic passages in Satapatha,Taittiriya,Aitareya and Panchavimsha Brahmanas,which states that the offering of cakes made up of grains(purodasha) is equal to the animal offering.
My limited personal opinion:

Personally I think it is very likely that the ancient sacrificed real animals and that they did not see anything wrong with it. I think modern man has a rather distorted understanding of the ideas that ancient man had. Mythology was written in poems, the language of symbolism. Then philosophy came up written in prose and it changed everything. Everything symbolic became literal, Through reading prose we have become literalist, we take things literal. Then the understanding of things becomes limited in non-contradictory terms we call logic. Thus we say: ahimsa means not hurting any being, so certainly not killing any animal by the people we hold high as the wise.

I think our minds then become less sensitive. Modern man can no longer deal with ambiguity. Simplification through logic leads inevitably to contradiction when dealing with old texts. Modern man thinks contradictions mean that something is wrong. That is because we no longer live in Nature, but in self-created mindscapes (Mental landscapes). We created whole new languages like mathematics that no longer allow contradictions. We superimpose this rigid thinking on reality. The Gita actually is a monument, the pinnacle of precise, logical thinking. A philosophical world wonder. But it can not reflect the subtlety of Nature. It is not the Rig Veda. It is an abstraction of the the Vedas. It is made to be perfect, but it is limited by its logic, and blinds us.

That is why we no longer see that Reality is full of subtle contradictions, ambiguity, nuances that challenge our literal thinking. In our rigid logical thinking we believe that if something (like non-violence) is beneficiary, it is even better if we take it to the extreme. That is why we have literalists putting a large amount of effort in not using anything of dead animals no matter how small. In this mindset it even becomes unthinkable that the wisest of the wise would have done something so evil as killing animals.

But that is a projection of modern thinking on ancient customs. To begin with I am sure that the ancient would disagree that animal sacrifice was harmful to the animal. They would content that this was the best that could happen to any animal for many reasons. First of all we have a rather naive picture of nature. Nature can be very brutal to animals, and animals rarely die of old age. So if a sacrificial animal was well fed and taken care off before he was ultimately killed that would be a blessing to the animal. Secondly, an animal sacrificed to the Gods would be the best fate that any animal could wish for. It would bring him immediately to a higher plane. This is the opposite of harming an animal. Thirdly, special care was taken not anger the spirit of the animal. Rituals and prayers were done for that, for they were very concerned that an angry spirit would take revenge on them. Even today in Africa there are still tribes who do animal sacrifices in this way.

Did you notice something about man, bull, horse, ram and he-goat. They did not sacrifice arbitrary animals, but the ones they depended on, and they sacrifices the males, not the females. The principle behind sacrice is that Gods are basically multipliers. What we give them they return in abundance, ten times, a hundred times, a thousand times. So to get a good harvest, you preserve grain from last harvest and sacrifice it to the Gods. To get enough rain you sacrifice water, to get enough milk, you pour milk. To get more animals you sacrifice animals. Soma offered to the Gods multiplies happiness.
Why males? Because it is the Dharm of males to be sacrificed. It is their Dharm to protect the lives of their wifes and children. Why are wars fought between men? Because men are expendable. Children need the mother more than the father. A whole generation of men can be slaughtered in a war, but after one generation people are back on their original numbers as their children grow up. For warriors war was also a ritual sacrifice. A way for men to reach the highest goals, as even Krishna points out to Arjuna. With animals too, you only need a few male animals for reproduction. They do not have the value of the female animals that give milk and nurture the young ones. That is why male animals were sacrificed in all cultures and often slaughtered as calves.

A sacrifice is always symbolic as what we sacrifice is a token for what we want to receive. As man discovered the power of symbols, especially words, the sacrifices changed. The right word sounds, especially names, have the power to evoke things. You could say prayers instead, so mantras are sacrifices too. But the original direct way was to sacrifice what you wanted given. This can be done by throwing things at the Gods. that is why people still throw water and rice on occasions. The fire was a very powerful way to send gifts to the Gods, the fire being a mediator God itself.

I personally reject the idea that ritual animal sacrifice is against ahimsa because literalists create a simplistic notion of it. This idea that the ancient people were all peaceful forest dwellers that did not kill animals and pacified them with their tranquil minds is beautiful but not very realistic. Such great men exist but they are exceptions. Most sacrifices were simply done to secure that people had enough to eat. And the rule is simple, give part of your food to feed the Gods and they multiply it in return. This is simply how nature works, sow leftover grain in mother Earth and you are rewarded with abundance of grain. This goes for karma too: one small deed can have an avalanche of effects.

As I see it, the ancients were not religious fundamentalists that had sworn to veganism, they were practical people seeking harmony with nature. Why? because that is the best way to create a good life and to survive. They understood that Nature like our body is a system whose balance one must not disturb. No killing for pleasure, lust or greed. No indiscriminate killing. Animal predators in Nature obey to these rules, they kill but seldom for pleasure. Thus they service the animals they prey on by keeping the population healthy and prevent starvation by overpopulation that hits all.

Seeking ahimsa is a byproduct of seeking harmony, as much as the other way round. Brahman is in all, also means that everything in nature serves each other. Nothing lives for his own sake. Yes animals too serve each other as food. That is seva too. Nowadays we live with the idea that everything has to live until it dies from the misfortunes of old age, but nature is not based on that. More important than dying of old age is leading a life that fulfills its purpose, its Dharma. If death itself can fulfill a purpose too, that is a beautiful thing. That is the idea that also makes us worship hero's that give their life for the benefit of others.

In my country they try to recreate wild life. But due to a lack of natural predators there is often overpopulation of animals like deer and horses that leads to large scale starvation in winter, which is an enduring awful suffering for all the animals. But people reject shooting a few animals for reasons of ahimsa. But without predators, human or animal, there is no balance in nature, and without balance there is no harmony either. Idealizing philosophical ideas that neglect or reject Nature only lead to more suffering.

I think it is great that developed minds stops eating meat not wanting to hurt, but as a rigid principle it would have averse effects. If in my country people would stop eating meat, then most animals would simply become superfluous and be killed. We would genocide them, problem solved, no more animals, so no more animal killing and suffering. And if the end of all suffering of man is the goal, than killing the human race would be the logical solution. That is why Abramists believe God will come to destroy the world, the final solution. That is where this limited logical philosophical thinking leads to. It also leads to people taking on suffering freely in life to escape suffering in next lives. It leads to all kind of life-denying conclusions, rejecting joy of life.

That is not what I read in the Vedas. In the Vedas I witness people that cherish life, people that use sacrifices as way to lead harmonious lives in accordance with Nature. The Vedas do not state like the Bible that the rest of Nature is giving to man for his wants. It teaches true respect of Nature. But everything is sacrifice to each other, everything serves each other. There is constant transformation. In the end every being is eaten, if not by the big animals then by fungus and micro-organisms.

Renunciates of the world strive for not using any particle of killed animals. They strife for perfection. They believe in a perfect God. To be perfect like their God they see as a way to reunite with him. They think contributing to animal suffering in any way is ungodlike.

I am a polytheist. I reason, if such perfect God would exist that created this world, he could have done a better job. It would not need saving, nor would it be filled with suffering to be saved from. Yes monotheist have many explanations, like: we self-inflicted it, sufferings helps us in understanding God, etc. Okay than suffering has the same benefit to animals, it will help them become humans. If not so, why does God hurt these poor beings so much? It is so easy to create all kinds explanations that it easily leads to life rejecting thinking and behavior. That is why Dharma based on Laws of Nature is superior to book morale. Nature neither forbids nor imposes but challenges us seek the right actions according to the circumstances, thus we seek harmony and happiness finds us in return. Nature celebrates life, that is why it is so abundant, but at the same time it renews itself through birth and death. Being part of this is not evil like monotheist think. It is the expression of Brahman.

Aryavartian
13 January 2014, 02:41 AM
My limited personal opinion:

Personally I think it is very likely that the ancient sacrificed real animals and that they did not see anything wrong with it. I think modern man has a rather distorted understanding of the ideas that ancient man had. Mythology was written in poems, the language of symbolism. Then philosophy came up written in prose and it changed everything. Everything symbolic became literal, Through reading prose we have become literalist, we take things literal. Then the understanding of things becomes limited in non-contradictory terms we call logic. Thus we say: ahimsa means not hurting any being, so certainly not killing any animal by the people we hold high as the wise.

I think our minds then become less sensitive. Modern man can no longer deal with ambiguity. Simplification through logic leads inevitably to contradiction when dealing with old texts. Modern man thinks contradictions mean that something is wrong. That is because we no longer live in Nature, but in self-created mindscapes (Mental landscapes). We created whole new languages like mathematics that no longer allow contradictions. We superimpose this rigid thinking on reality. The Gita actually is a monument, the pinnacle of precise, logical thinking. A philosophical world wonder. But it can not reflect the subtlety of Nature. It is not the Rig Veda. It is an abstraction of the the Vedas. It is made to be perfect, but it is limited by its logic, and blinds us.

That is why we no longer see that Reality is full of subtle contradictions, ambiguity, nuances that challenge our literal thinking. In our rigid logical thinking we believe that if something (like non-violence) is beneficiary, it is even better if we take it to the extreme. That is why we have literalists putting a large amount of effort in not using anything of dead animals no matter how small. In this mindset it even becomes unthinkable that the wisest of the wise would have done something so evil as killing animals.

But that is a projection of modern thinking on ancient customs. To begin with I am sure that the ancient would disagree that animal sacrifice was harmful to the animal. They would content that this was the best that could happen to any animal for many reasons. First of all we have a rather naive picture of nature. Nature can be very brutal to animals, and animals rarely die of old age. So if a sacrificial animal was well fed and taken care off before he was ultimately killed that would be a blessing to the animal. Secondly, an animal sacrificed to the Gods would be the best fate that any animal could wish for. It would bring him immediately to a higher plane. This is the opposite of harming an animal. Thirdly, special care was taken not anger the spirit of the animal. Rituals and prayers were done for that, for they were very concerned that an angry spirit would take revenge on them. Even today in Africa there are still tribes who do animal sacrifices in this way.

Did you notice something about man, bull, horse, ram and he-goat. They did not sacrifice arbitrary animals, but the ones they depended on, and they sacrifices the males, not the females. The principle behind sacrice is that Gods are basically multipliers. What we give them they return in abundance, ten times, a hundred times, a thousand times. So to get a good harvest, you preserve grain from last harvest and sacrifice it to the Gods. To get enough rain you sacrifice water, to get enough milk, you pour milk. To get more animals you sacrifice animals. Soma offered to the Gods multiplies happiness.
Why males? Because it is the Dharm of males to be sacrificed. It is their Dharm to protect the lives of their wifes and children. Why are wars fought between men? Because men are expendable. Children need the mother more than the father. A whole generation of men can be slaughtered in a war, but after one generation people are back on their original numbers as their children grow up. For warriors war was also a ritual sacrifice. A way for men to reach the highest goals, as even Krishna points out to Arjuna. With animals too, you only need a few male animals for reproduction. They do not have the value of the female animals that give milk and nurture the young ones. That is why male animals were sacrificed in all cultures and often slaughtered as calves.

A sacrifice is always symbolic as what we sacrifice is a token for what we want to receive. As man discovered the power of symbols, especially words, the sacrifices changed. The right word sounds, especially names, have the power to evoke things. You could say prayers instead, so mantras are sacrifices too. But the original direct way was to sacrifice what you wanted given. This can be done by throwing things at the Gods. that is why people still throw water and rice on occasions. The fire was a very powerful way to send gifts to the Gods, the fire being a mediator God itself.

I personally reject the idea that ritual animal sacrifice is against ahimsa because literalists create a simplistic notion of it. This idea that the ancient people were all peaceful forest dwellers that did not kill animals and pacified them with their tranquil minds is beautiful but not very realistic. Such great men exist but they are exceptions. Most sacrifices were simply done to secure that people had enough to eat. And the rule is simple, give part of your food to feed the Gods and they multiply it in return. This is simply how nature works, sow leftover grain in mother Earth and you are rewarded with abundance of grain. This goes for karma too: one small deed can have an avalanche of effects.

As I see it, the ancients were not religious fundamentalists that had sworn to veganism, they were practical people seeking harmony with nature. Why? because that is the best way to create a good life and to survive. They understood that Nature like our body is a system whose balance one must not disturb. No killing for pleasure, lust or greed. No indiscriminate killing. Animal predators in Nature obey to these rules, they kill but seldom for pleasure. Thus they service the animals they prey on by keeping the population healthy and prevent starvation by overpopulation that hits all.

Seeking ahimsa is a byproduct of seeking harmony, as much as the other way round. Brahman is in all, also means that everything in nature serves each other. Nothing lives for his own sake. Yes animals too serve each other as food. That is seva too. Nowadays we live with the idea that everything has to live until it dies from the misfortunes of old age, but nature is not based on that. More important than dying of old age is leading a life that fulfills its purpose, its Dharma. If death itself can fulfill a purpose too, that is a beautiful thing. That is the idea that also makes us worship hero's that give their life for the benefit of others.

In my country they try to recreate wild life. But due to a lack of natural predators there is often overpopulation of animals like deer and horses that leads to large scale starvation in winter, which is an enduring awful suffering for all the animals. But people reject shooting a few animals for reasons of ahimsa. But without predators, human or animal, there is no balance in nature, and without balance there is no harmony either. Idealizing philosophical ideas that neglect or reject Nature only lead to more suffering.

I think it is great that developed minds stops eating meat not wanting to hurt, but as a rigid principle it would have averse effects. If in my country people would stop eating meat, then most animals would simply become superfluous and be killed. We would genocide them, problem solved, no more animals, so no more animal killing and suffering. And if the end of all suffering of man is the goal, than killing the human race would be the logical solution. That is why Abramists believe God will come to destroy the world, the final solution. That is where this limited logical philosophical thinking leads to. It also leads to people taking on suffering freely in life to escape suffering in next lives. It leads to all kind of life-denying conclusions, rejecting joy of life.

That is not what I read in the Vedas. In the Vedas I witness people that cherish life, people that use sacrifices as way to lead harmonious lives in accordance with Nature. The Vedas do not state like the Bible that the rest of Nature is giving to man for his wants. It teaches true respect of Nature. But everything is sacrifice to each other, everything serves each other. There is constant transformation. In the end every being is eaten, if not by the big animals then by fungus and micro-organisms.

Renunciates of the world strive for not using any particle of killed animals. They strife for perfection. They believe in a perfect God. To be perfect like their God they see as a way to reunite with him. They think contributing to animal suffering in any way is ungodlike.

I am a polytheist. I reason, if such perfect God would exist that created this world, he could have done a better job. It would not need saving, nor would it be filled with suffering to be saved from. Yes monotheist have many explanations, like: we self-inflicted it, sufferings helps us in understanding God, etc. Okay than suffering has the same benefit to animals, it will help them become humans. If not so, why does God hurt these poor beings so much? It is so easy to create all kinds explanations that it easily leads to life rejecting thinking and behavior. That is why Dharma based on Laws of Nature is superior to book morale. Nature neither forbids nor imposes but challenges us seek the right actions according to the circumstances, thus we seek harmony and happiness finds us in return. Nature celebrates life, that is why it is so abundant, but at the same time it renews itself through birth and death. Being part of this is not evil like monotheist think. It is the expression of Brahman.

Namaste Avyaydya,interesting input,however it is to be noted that female animals were also sacrificed in rituals.For eg cows were sacrificed for paying homage to the deceased.I somewhere read that ancients sacrificed cows because they thought the cows would accompany the deceased on the way to heaven.

However,for the sacrificial rituals i.e Yajna,i think only male animals were used.

Amrut
13 January 2014, 06:10 AM
Namaste Avyaydya,interesting input,however it is to be noted that female animals were also sacrificed in rituals.For eg cows were sacrificed for paying homage to the deceased.I somewhere read that ancients sacrificed cows because they thought the cows would accompany the deceased on the way to heaven.

However,for the sacrificial rituals i.e Yajna,i think only male animals were used.

Namaste,

Were the cows milk-giving cows or old cows?

Hari OM

Aryavartian
13 January 2014, 06:47 AM
Namaste,

Were the cows milk-giving cows or old cows?

Hari OM


Namaste Amrut,

In Satapatha Brahmana,it is anustarani cow or a barren,aged cow which is sacrificed.

But in Grhya sutras,it doesn't specify which cow is sacrificed.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe30/sbe30032.htm

However like i said in earlier post,these sacrifices may be purely symbolical.Brahmana texts says the sacrificial animal should abandoned by its father,mother,siblings etc....now how the heck is that possible?


EDIT: Here is the link to the sacrifice of cow to the fathers:http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe30/sbe30087.htm

Kalicharan Tuvij
13 January 2014, 07:56 AM
Namaste Amrut,

In Satapatha Brahmana,it is anustarani cow or a barren,aged cow which is sacrificed.

But in Grhya sutras,it doesn't specify which cow is sacrificed.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe30/sbe30032.htm

However like i said in earlier post,these sacrifices may be purely symbolical.Brahmana texts says the sacrificial animal should abandoned by its father,mother,siblings etc....now how the heck is that possible?


EDIT: Here is the link to the sacrifice of cow to the fathers:http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe30/sbe30087.htm
Namaste Aryavarti

RgVedic words tell us all..there is no contradiction between its language and its themes (golden rule, I'd say).

So aśva (a+śva, "who doesn't get to live"), and hari (hara, "taken away"), that is, the horse, is taken and understood to be the sacrificial animal, symbolically and literally. AsviniKumar is the presiding god of the central theme, Yagya or sacrifice, of the RV.

Cow, is not. Neither is any kind of pasu-dhana (cattle).

In the various Sutra-s we have to make necessary distinction from the Veda. For example, in Grihya-sutra (ritual book for conducting domestic Yagya), the post-Vedic mentality could run as thus:
"Let us provide our forefathers with the pasu-dhana by sacrificing it to them".

Whereas, in Veda, "cows" are something to be gained, not to be lost.

With the coming of Kaliyuga, Vedic consciousness was lost upon the people, and many desperate seekers (call them the lefties, or naxals) fell into the trap of annihilation, even if just to have a peep on what lies there beyond the visible, beyond the mundane, and beyond the ego.

Even then, I prefer to see the Left (of Hinduism) as a child of the Vedic age, as much as the Right of Hinduism which though mistakingly called the "mainstream" seems to have over stressed on the ahimsa part and in all reality on the ground has given way to the Left.

KT

Avyaydya
13 January 2014, 09:15 AM
Namaste Amrut,

In Satapatha Brahmana,it is anustarani cow or a barren,aged cow which is sacrificed.

But in Grhya sutras,it doesn't specify which cow is sacrificed.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe30/sbe30032.htm

However like i said in earlier post,these sacrifices may be purely symbolical.Brahmana texts says the sacrificial animal should abandoned by its father,mother,siblings etc....now how the heck is that possible?


EDIT: Here is the link to the sacrifice of cow to the fathers:http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe30/sbe30087.htm
Namaste Aryavartian,

To me, it does not appear the description of the sacrifices is symbolic. These are precise instructions like one finds in a cook book.

What is symbolic is how the it is done. For instance
He sprinkles (the cow with water)
they kill it to the west of the fire, its head being turned to the west, its feet to the south.
he sprinkles water round (the fire) from right to leftThose things have symbolic meaning. But the sacrifice itself serves a practical purpose, we can also read:
The other parts (S�tra 5) he should offer to the Br�hmanas and should feed them
May you live on that milk, O Fathers, all together.Some of the symbolism is explained in the other text:

26. The head of which is turned to the east, the feet to the north, if the rite is sacred to the gods,
27. The head to the south, the feet to the west, if the rite is sacred to the Manes.West (Sunset) is generally associated with death. East (Sunrise) is generally associated with the Gods. That is symbolism.

Also these sacrifices were central in all nature religions, and only later abandoned. For instance in Judaism something like 90% of the commandments are related to sacrificing animals and preparing the food. That is only logical as birth and death connect us to the spirit world.

I think, today we are focused on the death of the animal because we have become terrified of death ourselves. We live more in the I and the ego can not comprehend its own end. But in the past people accepted death much more as a passing on. They were more concerned about what was next, than to delay death. For instance the Germanics were scared to die in bed, they wanted to die on the battlefield so they could go to the heaven of warriors, Valhalla. But these same people sat very peacefully around their holy oaks to worship everything in Nature.

In later religion the warrior caste became a professional army, soldiers for hire, who no longer fought for their own people. These people were not seeking honorable death but survival. They no longer have a warrior code but want to win by any means possible. That depreciated death from something that could also be glorious if done in the prescribed way. This life preservation led to the perversion we see today, in which the US wages wars in which it kills millions but almost without any casualties on her side (They are pro-life). Or we use drones to kill people with remote controls. Now war has become a mindless butchering.

As I see it: The great evil of this age is not that we kill animals, but that we do it mindlessly. We have degraded them to a raw material in an industry. We no longer see animals, we see meat. We no longer see trees, we see wood. We no longer see people, we see labor. We took the spirit out of Nature. Brahman within became God above. A God only understood by man, a projection of his ego on the universe. In my country the industrial farming is often in the hands of very bible believing monotheists. This God, this universal I, has little compassion with lower creatures, unbelievers or animals. They do not go to heaven (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVq1xm3sr5Y).

Amrut
13 January 2014, 09:56 AM
Thank you Aryavartian,




Some of the symbolism is explained in the other text:
West (Sunset) is generally associated with death. East (Sunrise) is generally associated with the Gods. That is symbolism.

Namaste Avyaydya,

I think It is south that is associated with death. North is highly spiritual. When we do rituals related to deva-s, we wear sacred thread on left side and sit facing east.

So, sitting facing east means on left side there is north and on right side there is south. Our back faces west.

When performing rituals related to pitr-s (our ancestors), we switch sacred thread to right side so that it points to south. After the ritual is over we switch back thread on left shoulder. Kanchi Paramacharya says that when we do not any ritual, sacred thread has to be wore like a garland, but today nobody is following this custom. We keep our sacred thread on left shoulder even when we are not doing anything and switch to right shoulder only when performing rites and rituals related to ancestors.

Hari OM

Amrut
13 January 2014, 09:59 AM
... and even if there is symbolic meaning, it does not mean that literal meaning has to be discarded. It is journey from extrovert to introvert. Even in tantra, same pattern is followed. In this beginning, there are external rituals. Later there is a mixture of both internal and external (misra - mixed) and then later on it is entirely introvert. Deity, objects to be offered like flower (sometimes it is chakra-s) are all imagined within us, inside mind.

Hari OM

Aryavartian
13 January 2014, 10:02 AM
Namaste Avyaydya,


Namaste Aryavartian,

To me it does not appear the description of the sacrifices is symbolic. These are precise instructions like one finds in a cook book.

By symbolic,i meant pratima(substitute figure) of the victim made of of grains would be used instead of actual animal.You can see the verses of Satapatha Brahmana from 1.2.3.5-8 which explains the use of grain cakes instead of actual animals.

The pratima purodasha or grain cake looks like this(shown in the OP):

http://www.namboothiri.com/somayaagam_photos/namb_somayaagam_photo_19.jpg


When it is roasted/baked,it will become hard,much like a terracotta figure.We can then deal it with as if we are dealing with an actual animal.

Many other Brahmanas like Taittiriya,Aitareya,Panchavimsha etc also makes mention of this "cake animal".

Anyway,i am not denying actual animal sacrifices,just showing a possibility :)

Amrut
13 January 2014, 10:07 AM
Namaste Avyaydya,

By symbolic,i meant pratima(substitute figure) of the victim made of of grains would be used instead of actual animal.You can see the verses of Satapatha Brahmana from 1.2.3.5-8 which explains the use of grain cakes instead of actual animals.

The pratima purodasha or grain cake looks like this(shown in the OP):

<content snipped>

Anyway,i am not denying actual animal sacrifices,just showing a possibility :)

Namaste,

What I feel is that we will have to read the whole chapter to understand the context. What I feel is that there is a gradual, conscious effort to move from killing actual animal to his pratimA, and then in Jnana Kand, the ritual itself is dropped.

It is interesting to see it is BrAhmaNa. Adi Shankara quoted BrAhmaNa-s so they may contain deep meaning when all dots are joined.

Since I have not studied samhitA-s and BrAhmaNa-s, I cannot comment much on it. It is a general observation that there is gradual conscious step-by-step effort to lift one spiritually.

Hari OM

Aryavartian
13 January 2014, 10:17 AM
Namaste,

What I feel is that we will have to read the whole chapter to understand the context. What I feel is that there is a gradual, conscious effort to move from killing actual animal to his pratimA, and then in Jnana Kand, the ritual itself is dropped.

I don't think the ritual is dropped in jnana kanda,but it "mystifies" it ;) Anyway,i personally think the ritual should be a mix of both janana and karma kandas i.e while offering external Yajnas,we must also hold a spiritual,internal aspect of it.

Amrut
13 January 2014, 10:44 AM
I don't think the ritual is dropped in jnana kanda,but it "mystifies" it ;) Anyway,i personally think the ritual should be a mix of both janana and karma kandas i.e while offering external Yajnas,we must also hold a spiritual,internal aspect of it.

Every act can be a yajna, an offering to God, but vedic karma kand has benefits.

1. It keeps the tradition alive.
2. It helps deva-s and in return they bless us.
3. Vibrations of mantra-s clean nadi-s of not only the one who is chanting, but all those who can hear it. Admittedly the one who is chanting can gain maximum benefit, but others present can also gain benefit. This covers even plant kingdom.

Appayya Dikshita was a vedic karma kandi. When he performed a vedic animal (paSU) sacrific, he prayed to the Lord to make it count that this is not mere killing of an animal. The entire havan kund rose high in the air, thereby justifiying vedic rituals and a heavenly chariot came to receive the soul of animal offered to deva-s says Kanchi Paramachrya :)

Hari OM

Aryavartian
13 January 2014, 10:57 AM
Namaste Amrut,




1. It keeps the tradition alive.


I personally think this is the best part,preserving traditions is a must.All great cultures like Greek,Egypt,Rome,Mesopotamia,Persia etc have been wiped out by you-know-who.Only our Vedic tradition survives.Although,i fear it would soon be wiped out as well.There are very few Srauta Brahmins who can perform the ancient rituals properly,i hope they can keep up the tradition through their future generations.

I believe India is really in need of a Pushyamitra Shunga.Pushyamitra overthrew the Nastika,anti-ritualistic Mauryan regime and re-established the Vedic ritualism by performing Ashvamedha.He also stopped Yavanas from conquering Aryavarta any further.

Anyway,on a side note,i read somewhere that most Atiratra Somayajnas bought rain in the midst of summer.

Amrut
13 January 2014, 11:01 AM
Namaste Amrut,



I personally think this is the best part,preserving traditions is a must.All great cultures like Greek,Egypt,Rome,Mesopotamia,Persia etc have been wiped out by you-know-who.Only our Vedic tradition survives.Although,i fear it would soon be wiped out as well.There are very few Srauta Brahmins who can perform the ancient rituals properly,i hope they can keep up the tradition through their future generations.

I believe India is really in need of a Pushyamitra Shunga.Pushyamitra overthrew the Nastika,anti-ritualistic Mauryan regime and re-established the Vedic ritualism by performing Ashvamedha.He also stopped Yavanas from conquering Aryavarta any further.

Anyway,on a side note,i read somewhere that most Atiratra Somayajnas bought rain in the midst of summer.

Namaste Aryavartian,

I whole heartedly agree and pray for the same.

Shankaracharya matha-s are making every effort they can to keep the tradition alive.

During those days, the vedic priest performing yajna was so strong and purified that deva-s would answer his prayers and shower rain.

Hari OM

Aryavartian
13 January 2014, 11:10 AM
Namaste Amrut,





Shankaracharya matha-s are making every effort they can to keep the tradition alive.





Of course,Shankara Mathas propagate Advaita,which is also part of Dharmic/Vedic tradition,but do they perform Srauta rituals?

Amrut
13 January 2014, 11:28 AM
Namaste Amrut,

Of course,Shankara Mathas propagate Advaita,which is also part of Dharmic/Vedic tradition,but do they perform Srauta rituals?

Namaste Aryavartian

A BIG Yes.

They also maintain temples. Not all can practice advaita. Temples are for all. Vedic karma kand is to be preserved.

Shankaracharya maths and other independent mathas like that of Sri Ramesh bhai Oza (a Brahmin scholar) have set up veda pAThaSALA-s. They have a 12 year course that teaches all including Agama-s. Later some bright students also take up veda-bhashya by SAyanAcArya, which is considered as authentic. It takes another 6 years to master them to some extent.

MimAmsaka-s may stay mimAmsaka-s. They do not need to enter into advaita (monasticism) after completing the course and can independently practice own their own. They are free to 'settle down' i.e. marry and lead a pious family life.

Upanishads are taught, but it is on intellectual level. If a student wishes, he can shift to advaita under the guidance of Jagadguru.

I have also heard that they also give scholarships. They also help search good student for a knowledgeable acharya, eventhough he do not wish to work under Shankaracharya math and when he performs any yajna, other acharya-s (and may be students) from math wholeheartedly join him.

P.S. I am talking about Kanchi and Shringeri Math. Other matha-s also make efforts, but I do not have much info.

Good night

Hari OM

Aryavartian
13 January 2014, 11:32 AM
Namaste Amrut,



A BIG Yes.

They also maintain temples. Not all can practice advaita. Temples are for all. Vedic karma kand is to be preserved.

Shankaracharya maths and other independent mathas like that of Sri Ramesh bhai Oza (a Brahmin scholar) have set up veda pAThaSALA-s. They have a 12 year course that teaches all including Agama-s. Later some bright students also take up veda-bhashya by SAyanAcArya, which is considered as authentic. It takes another 6 years to master them to some extent.

MimAmsaka-s may stay mimAmsaka-s. They do not need to enter into advaita (monasticism) after completing the course and can independently practice own their own. They are free to 'settle down' i.e. marry and lead a pious family life.

Upanishads are taught, but it is on intellectual level. If a student wishes, he can shift to advaita under the guidance of Jagadguru.

I have also heard that they also give scholarships. They also help search good student for a knowledgeable acharya, eventhough he do not wish to work under Shankaracharya math and when he performs any yajna, other acharya-s (and may be students) from math wholeheartedly join him.

P.S. I am talking about Kanchi and Shringeri Math. Other matha-s also make efforts, but I do not have much info.

Good night

Hari OM


Thanks for clarifying,good to know they preserve our Karma Kanda traditions at the same time they preserve Jnana Kanda! :)

Jaskaran Singh
13 January 2014, 11:52 AM
Shankaracharya maths and other independent mathas like that of Sri Ramesh bhai Oza (a Brahmin scholar) have set up veda pAThaSALA-s. They have a 12 year course that teaches all including Agama-s. Later some bright students also take up veda-bhashya by SAyanAcArya, which is considered as authentic. It takes another 6 years to master them to some extent.

He has a pretty voice, :p: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tPw3A1k6N58

Avyaydya
13 January 2014, 01:39 PM
Namaste Avyaydya,



By symbolic,i meant pratima(substitute figure) of the victim made of of grains would be used instead of actual animal.You can see the verses of Satapatha Brahmana from 1.2.3.5-8 which explains the use of grain cakes instead of actual animals.

The pratima purodasha or grain cake looks like this(shown in the OP):

http://www.namboothiri.com/somayaagam_photos/namb_somayaagam_photo_19.jpg


When it is roasted/baked,it will become hard,much like a terracotta figure.We can then deal it with as if we are dealing with an actual animal.

Many other Brahmanas like Taittiriya,Aitareya,Panchavimsha etc also makes mention of this "cake animal".

Anyway,i am not denying actual animal sacrifices,just showing a possibility :)
I think this is unlikely as it describes parts and internals of the body.


5. 5 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe30/sbe30087.htm#fn_691) After it has been killed, he silently 'strengthens' its sense-organs (by touching them) with water, and silently takes out the omentum, the heart, and the kidneys.
6. With the Vapsrapan of Udumbara wood he roasts the omentum; with spits of Udumbara wood the other (parts mentioned in Stra 5) separately.
7. After he has roasted them, and has sprinkled gya over them, and has taken them from the fire, he sprinkles water round (the fire) from right to left, puts a piece of Udumbara wood on (the fire), and sacrifices with a Darvi spoon of Udumbara wood the omentum, spreading under and sprinkling over it (gya), with (the verse), 'Carry the omentum, Gtavedas, to the Fathers, where thou knowest them resting afar. May streams of fat flow to them; may their wishes with all their desires be fulfilled. Svadh! Adoration!'
8. 8 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe30/sbe30087.htm#fn_692) He sacrifices the omentum entirely. The other parts (Stra 5) he should offer to the Brhmanas and should feed them (with those parts of the cow).
Do you believe that the momentum, heart, kidneys are symbolic? And what about the "Darvi spoon of Udumbara wood"?

Personally I would expect instructions how to create such symbolic animal as it would likely be surrounded with rituals to prepare it.

Aryavartian
13 January 2014, 03:36 PM
Pranam,


I think this is unlikely as it describes parts and internals of the body.

Do you believe that the momentum, heart, kidneys are symbolic? And what about the "Darvi spoon of Udumbara wood"?

Personally I would expect instructions how to create such symbolic animal as it would likely be surrounded with rituals to prepare it.


May be they would cut up random parts inside the cake and symbolize it as internal organs?

Here is an interesting passage from Aitareya Brahmana,which connects various parts of the sacrificial cake with the animal parts http://books.google.co.in/books?id=btvVwUvMgLUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=aitareya+brahmana&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Xn56UYWxAcWJrAejnYCoDg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=smallest%20particle%20the%20blood&f=false

And there IS a ritual myth associated with symbolical sacrifice,see Satapatha Brahmana verses 1.2.3.5 onwards :)

yajvan
13 January 2014, 05:22 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

More on agni can be found in this HDF post/string if there is interest:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4743


iti śivaṁ

Aryavartian
13 January 2014, 11:45 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

More on agni can be found in this HDF post/string if there is interest:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4743


iti śivaṁ

Namaste Sri Yajvan,


Wonderful thread!!


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namast�



Now if one were of a thinking mind, this statement has far reaching implications. Jātavedas knows every birth, every production. If we limit ourselves, then one ends up thinking, He knows every birth.
But if one opens up the possibilities, we have an extensive range for the notion of 'birth'.

the birth of all human beings and any/all beings on this earth or above or below it.
the birth of any seedling that becomes a plant or flora.
the birth of a thought
the birth of an idea
the birth of an action
etc.These are just a few ideas of the far reaching comprehension of what jātavedas knows and may wish to perceive.



iti śivaṁ


I think Agni is being called as Jatavedas because he is the second self of Prajapati-Purusha ,the manifested Brahman who created the whole world from his own body.

Yesterday,i read in Taittiriya Samhita that Agni also represents the solar energy.

Amrut
14 January 2014, 04:12 AM
He has a pretty voice, :p: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tPw3A1k6N58

yes, He has sung many hymms like Shiva Mala (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX2pCuecRSs&list=PL2EB632155942576B)

Scholarliness is visible on his face when he is doing bhagavat katha, but for bhAva, morAri bapu is better as a kathAkAra. If you are looking for a saint, Dongre Maharaj in Maharashtra is very famous.

Hari OM