Modern study of Upaniṣads?

[Arjuni]

Namasté, all,

I started the new year by enrolling in a few correspondence courses, partly for the sake of widening my knowledge and improving my discipline in study, and partly out of curiosity, to see what "official" institutions had to say about Hindu ideas and texts.

One of these classes teaches via video lectures by the professor. In the week 3 lecture, an introduction to the Upaniṣads, the professor related this story:

"I think I said in the very beginning, the Upaniṣads are not widely read at all and not widely known within contemporary Hinduism, outside a small group of very learned scholars and paṇḍits. I remember doing a course - this course, actually, on the Upaniṣads - with the Brahmin community in East London, and I remember the first class I asked, "What do you know about the Upaniṣads" and was greeted with absolute silence, then one voice from the back said, We know they exist...
They were aware of a body of literature called Upaniṣads, but within their religious life, they had never seen the need to delve into them. Not that they were bad Hindus, just the opposite! but the form of Hinduism that they practiced didn't involve a study of the Upaniṣads, and I think that would be fairly typical."

Is it, as the professor suggests, a fairly common Hindu attitude? To consider the Upaniṣads mostly unnecessary to religious practice and study, and/or to largely ignore them? This tale made me sad. But do you think it speaks only of the London community, or might someone addressing a modern Brahmin group anywhere encounter the same response?

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

[Eastern Mind]

Namasté, all,

I started the new year by enrolling in a few correspondence courses, partly for the sake of widening my knowledge and improving my discipline in study, and partly out of curiosity, to see what "official" institutions had to say about Hindu ideas and texts.

One of these classes teaches via video lectures by the professor. In the week 3 lecture, an introduction to the Upaniṣads, the professor related this story:

"I think I said in the very beginning, the Upaniṣads are not widely read at all and not widely known within contemporary Hinduism, outside a small group of very learned scholars and paṇḍits. I remember doing a course - this course, actually, on the Upaniṣads - with the Brahmin community in East London, and I remember the first class I asked, "What do you know about the Upaniṣads" and was greeted with absolute silence, then one voice from the back said, We know they exist...
They were aware of a body of literature called Upaniṣads, but within their religious life, they had never seen the need to delve into them. Not that they were bad Hindus, just the opposite! but the form of Hinduism that they practiced didn't involve a study of the Upaniṣads, and I think that would be fairly typical."

Is it, as the professor suggests, a fairly common Hindu attitude? To consider the Upaniṣads mostly unnecessary to religious practice and study, and/or to largely ignore them? This tale made me sad. But do you think it speaks only of the London community, or might someone addressing a modern Brahmin group anywhere encounter the same response?

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

Vannakkam Indra: I think his observations are very accurate. But I'm not terribly disheartened. Given how we've wrapped ourselves into this rat race of money chasing and more, many find little time to do anything much religious, let alone read scripture. I think it would be really helpful if someone would publish those calendars that give one quote per day, something like that, where a person could read the quote while pouring coffee, or publish such quotes in day planners.

My take is that many people find tackling scripture too daunting, as they look at it as a whole piece, rather than a page at a time. I know that's the reason my Guru wrote 3 books with 365 daily lessons each. That way it's manageable, and you don't get scared off by length or depth.

Aum Namasivaya

[MahaHrada]

Namasté, all,

I started the new year by enrolling in a few correspondence courses, partly for the sake of widening my knowledge and improving my discipline in study, and partly out of curiosity, to see what "official" institutions had to say about Hindu ideas and texts.

One of these classes teaches via video lectures by the professor. In the week 3 lecture, an introduction to the Upaniṣads, the professor related this story:

"I think I said in the very beginning, the Upaniṣads are not widely read at all and not widely known within contemporary Hinduism, outside a small group of very learned scholars and paṇḍits. I remember doing a course - this course, actually, on the Upaniṣads - with the Brahmin community in East London, and I remember the first class I asked, "What do you know about the Upaniṣads" and was greeted with absolute silence, then one voice from the back said, We know they exist...
They were aware of a body of literature called Upaniṣads, but within their religious life, they had never seen the need to delve into them. Not that they were bad Hindus, just the opposite! but the form of Hinduism that they practiced didn't involve a study of the Upaniṣads, and I think that would be fairly typical."

Is it, as the professor suggests, a fairly common Hindu attitude? To consider the Upaniṣads mostly unnecessary to religious practice and study, and/or to largely ignore them? This tale made me sad. But do you think it speaks only of the London community, or might someone addressing a modern Brahmin group anywhere encounter the same response?

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

Namaste
I just had a discussion with a member that has now been banned that elucidates some of the reasons why knowledge of the vedic tradition, including the upanishads which belong to the uttara Mimamsa tradition, is not so widespread in India and why it is incorrect to consider all of Hinduism vedic.
There is a lot of nonsense and unrelated comments posted in this thread,so i extracted the relevant information and tried cleaning up unnecessary elements so that you do not need to go through all the drivel posted. Here is the result:


There are many different ethnics and spiritual traditions that make up Bharata Dharma, not all of them are vedic. Only a small percentage of Indians are allowed to study the Vedas and the brahmin community is and was only a tiny minority following their specific rules and regulations, besides that exist many other sampradyas as ancient as the vedic, that do allow all people of all communities regardless of birth or gender to develop spiritually within their traditions, thats why the larger part of Hindus are not studying the vedic shastras but practice according to the rules laid down in the Agamas Tantras and Puranas besides following different local oral traditions.

Vedic religion was in the beginning just practised by a tiny community and participation was also restricted by birth into this community. It only slowly spread from the north west about 3500 years ago into other regions and mixed with the indigenous religions and spiritual traditions. These local religious traditions had their own traditions differing from those of the brahmin community these already included idol worship and other elements of modern hinduism that are non vedic, since prehistoric time. There are prehistoric archeological remains showing shakti idols long before there were any traces or archeological remains, or any written vedic religious texts, or any other traces of brahmanism. The presence of idol worship etc. in Hinduism clearly predates the later influence of the relatively small brahmin community that was following the vedic Religion. In later times the veda gainend influence, the influence of this community spread all over india and both traditions existed side by side. Modern Hinduism is still primarily agamic and not based on the vedic religion, but of course today also contains vedic influences.

A late result of this early admixture of communities are the puranas, they combined vedic influence with teachings of those agamas and tantras, which predated the puranas, that teach practises and philosophy which probably reach back to prehistoric times.

Worship of stones, trees, idols, lingas, jars and other objects predate the vedas by far and practises such as these have always remained the religion of the majority of the indian population that were non dvijas.
Vedic religion is neither the most ancient nor the most widespread tradition in India. The majority of hindus were not allowed to even listen to vedic recitation or read the upanishads until westerners descrated these vedic rules and published and translated these texts and made them available to all interested.

The vedic ritualism is much more elaborate than the agamic or puranic and these vedic Yagyas are also very expensive to arrange, another reason why vedic religion was only practised by a small elite that could afford to sponsors these events. The vedic tradition is far from being only intellectual or philosophical, what the study of the Upanishads may suggest, it is also highly centered around the correct performance of costly and elaborate sacrifices.

Still today local religious traditions are mostly oral traditions, scriptures are not necessary to practise a religion, and certainly cannot tell us how old a tradition is. We have many religions all over the world that go back to the stone age like the australian aborigines that do not have a single book. Agamas were written down in the middle ages but some of the content goes back to pre vedic times.

Vedas also existed as an oral tradition before they were written down and still are only partially recorded in script, books are only a reminder they still have to be studied with a Guru from mouth to ear to be valid, all else, like self study, is still considered invalid.

A non brahmin will not be accepted to study and practise in the vedic tradition, not in the past and not today, it is open to a single community, even among these, only a few, today as well as in in the past, have had the time, resources and dedication to find a valid Guru and master this topic.

For the different paths you need different qualifications.  If there are communities that do want to share their knowledge only with their clansmen i think they have the right to have that privacy and secrecy, the principle of Qualification (skt. adhikari) is also practised by the traditional tantric and agamic traditions, just here it should not be based on birth, race, clan, or gender.

Today a few people try to change birth based qualifications, but the general rule still holds good In traditional smarta smapradaya it was last year the first time that a non dvija was admitted for the study in Sringeri.

The agamas and tantras contain descriptions of many deities and concepts that are alien to the vedic tradition but are the foundation of modern Hinduism.

Tantra or Agama is a tradition open to all communities while the vedic path was to be practised only by the Brahmin community. There are a lot of tantric and agamic practices orthodox Brahmins following the vedachara cannot take part without loosing their status of purity. If Brahmins practise tantra they can only adapt very little for purity reasons. This shows that a huge part of Hinduism did develop independent of vedic society.

In Hinduism you have the vedachara and the tantrachara or kaulachara and vamachara and other agamic tradition like shaiva siddhanta and agamic Vaishnava lineages. Shramana and Jaina and also Buddhism are non vedic indic traditions but they are normally considered outside of Hinduism since they reject the Vedas entirely. The vedic path is or was at no point in Indian history the only or even the dominant spiritual tradition of India.

Vedic shastras consist of Samhitas, Brahmanas and Aranyakas and some of the early Upanishads. That is uttara and purva Mimamsa darshanas. Even modern so called "Vedanta" is not solely vedic but an admixture of teachings stemming from diverse sources, including folk belief, content of the agamas, tantras, puranas, yoga, vedanta and other darshanas.

Samkhya, Yoga and other ancient Hindu schools of thought do not belong to the Mimamsa tradition , and do not necessarly involve the study of the upanishads these traditions are also Hindu, but not vedic.

Medieaval and modern Vedanta has assimilated many concepts from Agamas, Tantra, Samkhya and Yoga, berides being based on the Upanishads so the title Vedanta is in many instances today, even where it is used regularly, nonetheless not really appropriate.

The term Vedanta should refer only to the traditional oral study of the upanishads under the tutelage of a Guru where knowledge still is transfered from mouth to ear. True understanding of the Upanishads and other advanced shastras is only possible through an oral Guru Shisya Relationship, same is especially relevant for the study of tantric and agamic shastras, because the Guru must transmits the subtle shakti, the power that will unlock the mysteries. Intellectual study cannot transfer what is called in the tantras "pratibha" divine intuiton a necessary prerequiste for the study of advanced topics.

The word "agama" does primarily not denote a collection of books but what is apprehended directly by the Guru in his divine intuition what has been handed down to him by his master, in a tradition that in the agamas and tantras began with Lord Shiva and was passed down and kept alive by a chain of human , siddha and divine Gurus for Millenia and this is what has to be transferred to the disciple now, not that what is contained in a book.

[Believer]

Namaste,

I say, bring back the banned member to make corrections to the one-sided long post above. :)
We want to give Indraneela the benefit of multiple viewpoints.

Pranam.

[MahaHrada]

Namaste,

I say, bring back the banned member to make corrections to the one-sided long post above. :)
We want to give Indraneela the benefit of multiple viewpoints.

Pranam.

;) :) ;)
i am not that long winded usually actually i hate long winded postings. And this is even redundant of course... ->Starting self hate <-

message too short...says the board :D

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;

For those with a burning desire to know (mumukṣu&#185;), the upaniṣad-s are a cool breeze to one's intellect.


We can look at upaniṣad in this manner, upa-ni- sad

upa - towards , near to (opposed to apa , away) , by the side of , with , together with , under
ni - down , back , in , into , within
sad = sat - Being, existence itself; it also means wise , venerable ; yet the 2nd definition of sad is also 'to sit down before ' So we can see upaniṣad means to set down near the wise (sat).

Now why do I mention this ? It suggests that the highest apprecation of this body of knowledge is revealed by setting down near the wise.

It suggests if one is just picking this book up off the shelf it may prove unattactive - that more is needed for its apprecation then direct reading.

And here is the 2nd insight - one can sit down near the wise, yet too one can settle down into ( within ) 'sat' that resides in one's own Self. This is the 2nd way of looking at this: For maximum benefit , sit near the wise , and sink back within your own Being.

These 2 things bring maximum value to the aspirant with the burning desire to know ( mumukṣu); I have found this to be true.

praṇām

words

mumukṣu - eager to be free (from mundane existence) , striving after emancipation

[Believer]

Namaste,

Is it, as the professor suggests, a fairly common Hindu attitude? To consider the Upaniṣads mostly unnecessary to religious practice and study, and/or to largely ignore them? This tale made me sad. But do you think it speaks only of the London community, or might someone addressing a modern Brahmin group anywhere encounter the same response?
If we look closely, the OP did not request any information whatsoever on Upanishads or any of the other scriptures. The question was/is if the Upanishads are generally ignored by Hindus. Boy, ask for a cup of coffee and they serve you a 50 course dinner. So generous!

Pranam.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~




namast&#233;

For those with a burning desire to know (mumukṣu&#185;), the upaniṣad-s are a cool breeze to one's intellect.
Now why do I mention this ?

A question may be , yajvan is there a reason you offered what you did ?
Yes. Let me connect the dots. Indraneela writes,


They were aware of a body of literature called Upaniṣads, but within their religious life, they had never seen the need to delve into them. Not that they were bad Hindus, just the opposite! but the form of Hinduism that they practiced didn't involve a study of the Upaniṣads, and I think that would be fairly typical."

The notion is this... without proper instruction, over time, a subject can be excused; Oh , I tried to read this and just do not know where its going, why should I pursue it. It is not part of my personsal experience.

This was the point being made. Knowledge and its apprecation comes with the expanision of ones own comprehension. One without the other ? The words are just words on a page, nothing more.

How to make this knowlege valuable and lively ?


And here is the 2nd insight - one can sit down near the wise, yet too one can settle down into ( within ) 'sat' that resides in one's own Self. This is the 2nd way of looking at this: For maximum benefit , sit near the wise , and sink back within your own Being

So 'the cup of coffee' that is offered is fresh, big, rich, filled with the cream of knowledge.

praṇām

[sdevante]

I suppose I have a bit of the opposite problem - I've read the principal Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita and now I only wish I had some books explaining the more Vedic aspects of Hinduism. But alas, I have not yet found a highly recommended English translation of the Vedas.

[MahaHrada]

Namaste,

If we look closely, the OP did not request any information whatsoever on Upanishads or any of the other scriptures. The question was/is if the Upanishads are generally ignored by Hindus. Boy, ask for a cup of coffee and they serve you a 50 course dinner. So generous!

Pranam.

Are you suggesting that beside that my post is being long winded one sided and redundant, it is also off topic to explain the Reason why the upanishads are neglected by Hinduism?

Please answer just "Yes" or "No" everything else will be regarded as off topic and ignored.

[devotee]

Namaste Indraneela and all,

Most of things what MH has suggested has grown by itself (Swayambhu) in the fertile minds of MH. So, please take it with a pinch of salt.

Your question was on Upanishads ... are they ignored by the Hindus ? First of all, there is absolutely no ban on any person to study Vedas in today's Hindu society. In Vedic times, the Veda-sutras have been composed by many non-Brahmins even the so-called Sudra-Rishis. I should not remind that Maharishi VyAs who has written many authoritative scriptures was a Sudra in strict sense. Again, all the six schools of Vedanta who actually spent considerable time to learn the Upanishads' message accepted people from all castes without any hitch, as far as I know. The Arya Samaj who goes purely by the Vedas and doesn't believe in the authority of any scripture other than the Vedas doesn't believe in caste-structure at all ! So, MH's attempt can be counted only as an attempt to malign the Hindus in general. His generalisation and confidence in writing a cooked up and twisted material as the fact is appalling ! I don't know what purpose is served by doing this.

Actually, the message of the Upanishads is not simple to understand. This is clear from the fact that in Hindu Dharma there are Six different schools who have their own interpretation of the Upanishads or the Vedanta. The Reality which can be described only by negation is not everyone's cup of tea. More so, the proclamation of the Vedanta like "Aham BrahmAsmi", "TatTvamasi" etc. was considered not appropriate for the common people. The Upanishads themselves state that imparting the knowledge of the Vedanta to all and sudry will harm the people who are not spiritually ready. That is why this knowledge was not made free for everyone.

To keep the people on the path of righteousness things had to be told in very simple language which was greatly served by the Itihasas and the Puranas. Even the great saints of the Bhakti Kaal (the period of Bhakti) chose to spread the spirituality among common men through telling stories from the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. It was easy for common men to go to temples and worship the deity in form for their worldly desires to fulfill than to discuss on the difficult subjects on Brahman, the characteristics of the soul, Universe and Brahman etc.

Slowly, this became the character of the Hindu family. You do what you learn from your father/mother/elders. You see that the spirituality ends with worshiping some forms of God/ fasting on some days / observing some rituals etc. The Brahmin who does all the Pooja for you in the temples and in your house on various occasions himself has never read Upanishads ... then why the house-holder would do it. That is how this study was neglected even by the people of intellect.

I hope it answers your question.

OM

[MahaHrada]

The Arya Samaj who goes purely by the Vedas and doesn't believe in the authority of any scripture other than the Vedas doesn't believe in caste-structure at all !
OM

I was not talking about "Arya samaj" or the "Self realization fellowship " or "Ramakrishna Math" and other modern Neo Hindu Movements but about traditional vedic Religion and the history of India.

To pretend that traditional vedic study is and was in the past equally open for all races communities and gender deserves no comment.

Regarding the evaluation of the historical revisionist trends in modern neo-hinduism and its relation to Colonialism and Islam, the series of blog posts, with their focus on Arya Samaj mentioned by Sahasranama in this posting
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=78619&postcount=39
look promising.

[Sahasranama]

Namaste Indraneela and all,

Most of things what MH has suggested has grown by itself (Swayambhu) in the fertile minds of MH. So, please take it with a pinch of salt.

OM

Mahahrada means a great ocean, we only have to churn it to get amrita, any salt that comes out of it will be taken by Svayambhu (shiva). ;)

[devotee]

I was not talking about "Arya samaj" or the "Self realization fellowship " or "Ramakrishna Math" and other modern Neo Hindu Movements but about traditional vedic Religion and the history of India.

To pretend that traditional vedic study is and was in the past equally open for all races communities and gender deserves no comment.

Regarding the evaluation of the historical revisionist trends in modern neo-hinduism and its relation to Colonialism and Islam, the series of blog posts, with their focus on Arya Samaj mentioned by Sahasranama in this posting
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=78619&postcount=39
look promising.

Dear MH,

You are not born in a traditional Hindu family living in India, therefore, you should be cautious in claiming something disputable about Hindu society in general. All that you speak is based on some dubious writings that you have read somewhere or you have gone by the popular notion about the Hindus and India. Therefore, please don't go on asserting on issues which you don't know correctly.

You are in habit of using "neo-Hindu organisation" term very casually. You should better stop that. The Vedas and Vedanta were studied by the different schools and sects alone and never by the common masses & that includes even the Brahmins. Arya SamAj, Ramkrishna Mission are one of those groups who have studied these scriptures very well. And for your kind information, the Hindu society doesn't consider them separate from Hindu society. In a family there may be some members who may be members of Arya SamAj, Ramkrishna Mission etc. and there may be some members who are not. We can't say that these organisations are not part of the Hindu society.

Casteism is a hot and very controversial topic for the Hindus. You have no idea what you are stirring up. You better check many threads on this forum devoted to this issue.

OM

[MahaHrada]

Mahahrada means a great ocean, we only have to churn it to get amrita, any salt that comes out of it will be taken by Svayambhu (shiva). ;)

Thanks for the flowers add a drop of milk against the poison bite :)

[MahaHrada]

Dear MH,

You are not born in a traditional Hindu family living in India, therefore, you should be cautious in claiming something disputable about Hindu society in general. All that you speak is based on some dubious writings that you have read somewhere or you have gone by the popular notion about the Hindus and India. Therefore, please don't go on asserting on issues which you don't know correctly.

You are in habit of using "neo-Hindu organisation" term very casually. You should better stop that. The Vedas and Vedanta were studied by the different schools and sects alone and never by the common masses & that includes even the Brahmins. Arya SamAj, Ramkrishna Mission are one of those groups who have studied these scriptures very well. And for your kind information, the Hindu society doesn't consider them separate from Hindu society. In a family there may be some members who may be members of Arya SamAj, Ramkrishna Mission etc. and there may be some members who are not. We can't say that these organisations are not part of the Hindu society.

Casteism is a hot and very controversial topic for the Hindus. You have no idea what you are stirring up. You better check many threads on this forum devoted to this issue.

OM

Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu had strolled on to the bridge over the Hao, when the former observed, 'See how the minnows are darting about! That is the pleasure of fishes.'
'You not being a fish yourself', said Hui Tzu, 'how can you possibly know in what consists the pleasure of fishes'?
'And you not being I', retorted Chuang Tzu, 'how can you know that I do not know'?
'If I, not being you, cannot know what you know', urged Hui Tzu, 'it follows that you, not being a fish, cannot know in what consists the pleasure of fishes'.
'Let us go back', said Chuang Tzu, 'to your original question. You asked me how I knew in what consists the pleasure of fishes. Your very question shows that you knew I knew. I knew it by standing on this bridge at the hao.

[Believer]

Namaste,

I apologize for butting into this discussion among heavyweights with my misplaced comments.

Pranam.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

devotee writes,


You are not born in a traditional Hindu family living in India, therefore, you should be cautious in claiming something disputable about Hindu society in general

These are wise words for all of us on HDF... To talk of the culture without living there and breathing in the air leaves one less knowledgable. The same goes for knowledge. Reading it vs. being taught by the wise is a different experience all together ( this has been my personal experience). So, what does one do ? The best we can , we continue to move forward.

believer writes,

I apologize for butting into this discussion among heavyweights with my misplaced comments
Your observations allow more knowledge to come out and this is always good.

praṇām

[MahaHrada]

I am not talking about my biography authority or qualifications, on the internet but i already answered "d....s" accusations in a thread once sometime ago, when he accused me of not having first hand experience of the nepali culture, but before other spiteful people come crawling out of the woodwork, i repeat once more, i have first hand experience of hindu society and culture. It is to your own disadvantage to underestimate my knowledge and qualifications it does not affect me.

[Seeker123]

Swami Dayananda Saraswathi (not the Arya Samaj founder) in his bio states that when he was growing up in 1930s in an orthodox brahmin family in a small village near Tanjore no one around him knew anything about Upanishads! This suggests that knowledge of Upanishads was uncommon even among brahmins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayananda_Saraswati_(Chinmaya_Mission)

Study of Vedanta by the masses is a recent phenomena. This is thanks to a lot of Vedantins including the neo-Vedantins ofcourse. For gaining scriptural knowledge the best accepted procedure of studying Vedanta is to read the Bhagavad Gita, select Upanishads, and Brahmasutras in that order. Ideally it should be studied under a traditional Guru (not neo-Vedantin) or at the very least listen to his/her CDs of discourses and satsangs. There should be opportunity to ask questions.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Swami Dayananda Saraswathi (not the Arya Samaj founder) in his bio states that when he was growing up in 1930s in an orthodox brahmin family in a small village near Tanjore no one around him knew anything about Upanishads! This suggests that knowledge of Upanishads was uncommon even among brahmins.

What you offer may be true. Yet it is one point in time, no? Pending who you read the upaniṣad-s date back to 800 to 200 B.C, some even say 6,000 B.C. . So if some brahmins around the 1930's where not aware or conversant with the upaniṣad-s at that time, this could be so, yet it is one data point in time.

Now that said, many śāstra-s are communcated and brought foward via the oral tradition. So it is hard to say when the upaniṣad-s started in this vein or how long it took to spead. Yet it is my humble opinion that these works (upaniṣad-s) were ~privilaged~ to various groups and territories. Like any great knowlege it begins to spread.

praṇām

[anirvan]

we are fighting on a unnecessary and never-solving question based upon the HISTORY BOOKS THROWN UPON US BY BRITISH/WESTERN/GERMAN HISTORIANS-PHILOSOPHERS to make India their eternal destination for Imperialism.

First what does it mean by Vedas.Is it certain collection of Sanskrit Slokas patented by the original writer,even the meaning,subjects also patented. Vedas became known after it was compiled By veda Vyasa at end of Dwapara.

VEDAS IS ETERNAL,so it can never be 2000BC old.It may have been compiled at such time.But it has been there sine begining of Satya-yuga.The term APAURUSEYA itself emphasize that its the knowledge,not any perticular book/slokas which we call Veda.

Before it was existing as WISDOM in the form of Rituals,Jnana and way to Mokhsa. These knowledge was being told to the seekers in the easiest language to them according to culture,language of the region.These Wisdom was being told in the form of Stories,slokas,puranic stories,legends,Agams and also in the form of pure sanskrit upanishadic ways.

How any person on earth can say that wisdom in vedic study is different from saivites/tantrik"S Agama/yogis books or teachings.Its knowledge that has been always same,but given to seekers according to their strength/ability and taste/choice.

Its absurd to tell that Upanishad was the hidden property of few brahmins.

Hinduism is always about NIBRITI AND PRABRITI PATH. Only few peoplesg bother about Prabriti dharma ,as they start questioning about life,death,truth and search the path of liberation.They are only one to show interest in study Vedas/scriptures.

Those with Prabriti dharma are happy and well engaged with worldly enjoyment and action without bothering about existence of such books or knowledge.

only after suffering/getting frustrated from worldly knowledge they search for such knowledge.

AHAM-BRAHMASMI IS NEVER MEANT FOR A HOUSEHOLD,ITS ONLY MEANT FOR A VEDANTIK SANNYASI WHO IS ARMOURED EITH SAT-SAMPAT.

If a household will be falsely convinced with AHAM-BRAHMASMI will be un-social nuisance and create all sort of adharma.

[Baobobtree]

Namaste all.


Is it, as the professor suggests, a fairly common Hindu attitude? To consider the Upaniṣads mostly unnecessary to religious practice and study, and/or to largely ignore them? This tale made me sad. But do you think it speaks only of the London community, or might someone addressing a modern Brahmin group anywhere encounter the same response? In the current age of the Kali Yuga, the traditional view is that it is considered harder for mankind to comprehend the Vedas (including the Upanishads), so subsidary texts like the Puranas, Itihasas, Tantras, etc. are instead reccomended for his/her study. Generally speaking, only the acharyas, sanyasins, and a very limited number of traditional Brahmin families have continued with the study of the Upanishads. With the rise of Neo-Hindu, and "Vedic revivalist" movements, the study of the Upanishads has begun to spread to the common man, but generally speaking most Hindus do not bother with the study of the Upanishads.


A non brahmin will not be accepted to study in the vedic tradition, not in the past and not today, it is open to a single community, even among these, only a few, today as well as in in the past, have had the time, resources and dedication to find a valid Guru and master this topic. Certainly at least since the time of Adi Shankaracharya, study of Sruti shastra has been limited to the twice born (dvija) varna, and often only to men. But if I'm not mistaken, this includes men of the Kshatriya, and Vaishya varna. The Brahmins were the only varna qualified to preform agnihotra, but the Kshatriya and Vaishya communities could study the Vedas under their tutelage, and employed the Brahmins to help them preform agnihotra.

Women, though generally not considered fit in medieval India to study the Vedas preform Yajnas etc. were clearly aloud to in the past. Various female rishis like Gargi, Lopamudra, etc. had mastered study of The Vedas. Likewise in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad a ritual is given for a husband and wife to preform should they wish to give birth to a daughter who is to be effecient in the Vedas. I don't have the exact verse number on hand, but if anyone would like me to dig it up for them I will gladly do so.

Now, where the discrepency lies on who can study the Vedas, is if the Sudra is entitled to study of the Vedas. Even in the Vedas themselves (Vedas here refering to the 4 Samhitas, the Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads, and Brahma Sutras) there are contradictory statements about a Sudra's right to study the Vedas, and in the Smriti Sastra this difference of opinions is also present. In Shukla Yajur Veda 26.2 we find
That I to all the people may address this salutary speech,
To priest and nobleman, S&#251;dra and Arya, to one of our own
kin and to the stranger.
Dear may I be to Gods and guerdon-giver. Fulfilled be this
my hope: be that my portion! Which would indicate both Sudras, and those considered outside the Vedic fold were eligable for study of the Sruti. They (like the Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas) could not preform Vedic Yajna without the help of the Brahmins, this is true, and in the Mahabharata we see the sudra Paijavana, does indeed employ Brahmins in helping him preform agnihotra. Now, various other Smriti texts bar sudras from studying the Vedas, and in the Brahma Sutras there is a small group of verses declaring Sudras can not study Sruti. So, whether or not Sudras can study the Veda, is a matter of debate, based on how one interprets the various verses which seemingly either allow or disallow the Sudra from studying Sruti.

At any rate the point I'm trying to make is that both the Neo-Hindu view, and the more traditional view about who can and can't study the Vedas have their basis in shastra, and either side could be considered valid.

[Mana]

Namaste all,

Please excuse my ignorance towards these matters; if I might be so bold as to add a thought to this discourse; Is it not the second birth of a Brahman which enables a clear vision of that which the Upanishads and Vedas portray?

As Baobobtree has indicated, is this not more difficult/painful in Kali Yuga?


praNAma

mana

[devotee]

Namaste all.

In the current age of the Kali Yuga, the traditional view is that it is considered harder for mankind to comprehend the Vedas (including the Upanishads), so subsidary texts like the Puranas, Itihasas, Tantras, etc. are instead reccomended for his/her study. Generally speaking, only the acharyas, sanyasins, and a very limited number of traditional Brahmin families have continued with the study of the Upanishads. With the rise of Neo-Hindu, and "Vedic revivalist" movements, the study of the Upanishads has begun to spread to the common man, but generally speaking most Hindus do not bother with the study of the Upanishads.

Certainly at least since the time of Adi Shankaracharya, study of Sruti shastra has been limited to the twice born (dvija) varna, and often only to men. But if I'm not mistaken, this includes men of the Kshatriya, and Vaishya varna. The Brahmins were the only varna qualified to preform agnihotra, but the Kshatriya and Vaishya communities could study the Vedas under their tutelage, and employed the Brahmins to help them preform agnihotra.

Women, though generally not considered fit in medieval India to study the Vedas preform Yajnas etc. were clearly aloud to in the past. Various female rishis like Gargi, Lopamudra, etc. had mastered study of The Vedas. Likewise in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad a ritual is given for a husband and wife to preform should they wish to give birth to a daughter who is to be effecient in the Vedas. I don't have the exact verse number on hand, but if anyone would like me to dig it up for them I will gladly do so.

Now, where the discrepency lies on who can study the Vedas, is if the Sudra is entitled to study of the Vedas. Even in the Vedas themselves (Vedas here refering to the 4 Samhitas, the Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads, and Brahma Sutras) there are contradictory statements about a Sudra's right to study the Vedas, and in the Smriti Sastra this difference of opinions is also present. In Shukla Yajur Veda 26.2 we find Which would indicate both Sudras, and those considered outside the Vedic fold were eligable for study of the Sruti. They (like the Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas) could not preform Vedic Yajna without the help of the Brahmins, this is true, and in the Mahabharata we see the sudra Paijavana, does indeed employ Brahmins in helping him preform agnihotra. Now, various other Smriti texts bar sudras from studying the Vedas, and in the Brahma Sutras there is a small group of verses declaring Sudras can not study Sruti. So, whether or not Sudras can study the Veda, is a matter of debate, based on how one interprets the various verses which seemingly either allow or disallow the Sudra from studying Sruti.

At any rate the point I'm trying to make is that both the Neo-Hindu view, and the more traditional view about who can and can't study the Vedas have their basis in shastra, and either side could be considered valid.

Thanks, Baobobtree for your valuable inputs. :)

Sudras can do this ... can't do this ... etc. etc. is a unending useless debate. We don't know what happened in the past and present is certainly more important than the past. I was refuting MH's assertion that Upanishads are not studied by the Hindu as "Only Brahmins were allowed to study Upanishads" . There is some smriti's support to this view point. However, the Shrutis don't support this idea. VajrasUchuka Upanishad even goes to the extent of challenging the Varna by birth notion.

Again, I won't go into details of what the various scriptures say on this issue as it has been discussed on this forum umpteen number of times. What I wanted to say at least today there is no ban on any caste/varna to study Vedas/Vedanta. These books are freely available in the market in India and anyone who has money in the pocket can buy and study these scriptures. We should remember that these Upanishads were studied even by the Muslims in India & also the English & that was long long back in 16th-17th century. The today's Hindu society is far more tolerant than it was in the past.

Actually, the usual understanding in the Hindu society is that the Upanishads and some other scriptures based on Upanishads are not for the house-holders but for the SannyAsis and the parents are afraid that if their children read those scriptures they would turn towards SannyAs.

OM

[MahaHrada]

They (like the Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas) could not preform Vedic Yajna without the help of the Brahmins, this is true, and in the Mahabharata we see the sudra Paijavana, does indeed employ Brahmins in helping him preform agnihotra. Now, various other Smriti texts bar sudras from studying the Vedas, and in the Brahma Sutras there is a small group of verses declaring Sudras can not study Sruti. So, whether or not Sudras can study the Veda, is a matter of debate, based on how one interprets the various verses which seemingly either allow or disallow the Sudra from studying Sruti.

At any rate the point I'm trying to make is that both the Neo-Hindu view, and the more traditional view about who can and can't study the Vedas have their basis in shastra, and either side could be considered valid.

Namaste

Thanks for the input, i will correct my posting accordingly, instead of "study" to "study and practise", (which is what i meant: study in a vedapatashala) when i mentioned "brahmins" other wise i already used the term "non dvijas."

Of course there is and was always the possibility to find passages in shruti or smrti that would theoretically allow other than dvijyas to study the Vedas, but that was rarely the case in practical life at least in the last few thousand years :) and since the question was not why so many people study the vedas and upanishads but the question was why so few study those shastras, i did not consider this relevant for the topic.

That does not mean that i disagree with anything you wrote just that i wrote about what actually happened and what was the reason why the upanishads are only studied by a minority of Hindus, and did not write about what theoretically could have happened or what is and was theoretically allowed, or not allowed, when it was very rarely or not at all put into practice.
Even today it is most unusual and even called a "historical event" when a non dvija is admitted for the serious study of the Vedas. It happened last year and such a one time event, only an ecxception made for a single person, is nonetheless called a "historical event" this i hope clarifies that it is nonsense to pretend that people from all races, communities or gender were in the past or today welcome to study the Upanishads.
@D....e= That Tom Dick or Harry can today buy a paperback edition of the upanishads and read it, or enrol at "arya Samaj" for a crash course in vedic revisionism, this is not what i meant when i wrote about "study of the upanishads."

Swamy Sivananda Sharma's Sringeri Math Enrolment - A Historical event
21/11/2011 12:24:59 HK

Alapuzha: History is created again from Kerala When the disciple of Acharya Narendra Bhushan Sivananda Sharma get enrolment in Sringeri Sri Sankara Ashram in Karnataka.Sivananda Sharma’s enrolment is so special because he belonged to Paraya Community one of the Scheduled Caste.

Sivananda Sharma is the youngest son of Shri P R Kunchan and Smt. Thankamma . He was attracted to spiritual world when he was doing his Pre-Degree education and took upanayanam under the guidance of Acharya Narendra Bhushan.

[Seeker123]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;


What you offer may be true. Yet it is one point in time, no? Pending who you read the upaniṣad-s date back to 800 to 200 B.C, some even say 6,000 B.C. . So if some brahmins around the 1930's where not aware or conversant with the upaniṣad-s at that time, this could be so, yet it is one data point in time.

Now that said, many śāstra-s are communcated and brought foward via the oral tradition. So it is hard to say when the upaniṣad-s started in this vein or how long it took to spead. Yet it is my humble opinion that these works (upaniṣad-s) were ~privilaged~ to various groups and territories. Like any great knowlege it begins to spread.

praṇām

Agree. But even today in my interactions I find that the study of Upanishads is limited among brahmins and non-brahmins alike. A non-scientific guess would put it at 20&#37; and 5% respectively. As Anirvan pointed it could be that way because most people are not looking for Moksha. So they dont really study Upanishads. But I see more people of all backgrounds getting interested in this.

[Seeker123]

Namaste

Even today it is most unusual and even called a "historical event" when a non dvija is admitted for the serious study of the Vedas. It happened last year and such a one time event, only an ecxception made for a single person, is nonetheless called a "historical event" this i hope clarifies that it is nonsense to pretend that people from all races, communities or gender were in the past or today welcome to study the Upanishads.
.

First of all today one need not join a Mutt and become a Sanyasi to do a serious study of Upanishads. Many traditional sages conduct daily/weekly lectures in India and abroad. Weekend camps are conducted. In the few ones I have been to none of them have asked for caste. I have seen people from all back grounds there. If you attend a few and get to know the organizers you can talk to the Swamis as well. Some of them are very accessible and some may not be. The ones I have interacted with have not asked for my caste.

[MahaHrada]

First of all today one need not join a Mutt and become a Sanyasi to do a serious study of Upanishads. Many traditional sages conduct daily/weekly lectures in India and abroad. Weekend camps are conducted. In the few ones I have been to none of them have asked for caste. I have seen people from all back grounds there. If you attend a few and get to know the organizers you can talk to the Swamis as well. Some of them are very accessible and some may not be. The ones I have interacted with have not asked for my caste.

1. Please you people realise that i have been writing about the history of India and the historical reasons why even today few people study the upanishads and practice the vedic traditions.

2. Enroling with Arya Samaj, visting centres like Ramakrishna Mutt, Self help/realization fellowships, whatever kind of Neo Hindu sages you may name that do weekend crash courses, etc this is not the traditional way Upanishads are studied and have been studied in the past. It is a very recent development that started with western colonialism and western interest in the study of Upanishads and the printing of translations that were available to all. Modern neo Hindu organisations will always only ask you for your money and service, not for your caste that is maybe becaused they all only desire your best :)

[Sahasranama]

That is very true, with the doing away of caste based on birth, a new caste system has arised that is based on your financial position.

[Believer]

Namaste,

Calling Miss Indraneela....

Indra, in response to your original post, so much in depth information has been handed down to you. We haven't heard as to if this information is adequate for now or would you like our esteemed members to keep doing more research? Your selection of this topic has brought many dormant accounts back to life, as they thought their input into this complex situation was essential.

Please do let us know. We always aim to please. :)

Pranam

[Baobobtree]

Namaste all.


Thanks for the input, i will correct my posting accordingly, instead of "study" to "study and practise", (which is what i meant: study in a vedapatashala) when i mentioned "brahmins" other wise i already used the term "non dvijas." I would like to note, I wasn't trying to correct you, to the contrary I voiced my understanding of who could traditionally study the Vedas and Upanishads, so as to get confirmation from a more knowledgable person such as yourself, if my understanding was indeed correct.


VajrasUchuka Upanishad even goes to the extent of challenging the Varna by birth notion. On a personal note, I certainly agree with the idea that varna is not based solely on birth, and there are many passages throughout Sruti and Smriti to support this notion (though again also many passages that would seem to refute this notion).


Please excuse my ignorance towards these matters; if I might be so bold as to add a thought to this discourse; Is it not the second birth of a Brahman which enables a clear vision of that which the Upanishads and Vedas portray?

As Baobobtree has indicated, is this not more difficult/painful in Kali Yuga? Well, this is one interpretation yes. As I have previously mentioned, some sastras indicate that even the non-dvija can study the Vedas (and therefore take the upanayana ceremony which is a prerequisite to study of Sruti). At any rate even in the traditional orthodox view Non-brahmins, like kshatriyas and vaishyas could study the Vedas. What the brahmins had dominion over was preforming important and elaborate agnihotra for both themselves, and other members of Hindu society. This makes sense, as if all varnas could preform the elaborate agnihotras without the assistance of the Brahmanas, the poor brahmins would not have be able to make ends meet.

For teaching other varnas as well as fellow brahmins the sastras, preforming yagnas, preforming pujas etc. the guru charges his disciple dakshina (fee). Yet, not wanting to cripple his disciples financially the guru would try to make such fees reasonably cheap, according to his student's means. As a result, in order to meet his own meager standard of living, a Brahmana had to preform many of these different serivces to many different disciples. So if all varnas could preform these rituals, the poor Brahmin would not be able to support himself, his spouse, children, parents (as was the case when they grew old in Indian culture) etc. with even the bare necessities, what to speak of any sort of luxuries. This is the financial reason behind this, spiritually speaking, the Brahmins devoted their whole lives to the spiritual benefit of both themselves and to the spiritual benefit of all sentient beings in the world. As a result a well studied, disciplined, and devoted Brahmin had a much higher spiritual compotency to preform these rituals than a householder of any other varna, who had other duties and material concerns to worry about.


Alapuzha: History is created again from Kerala When the disciple of Acharya Narendra Bhushan Sivananda Sharma get enrolment in Sringeri Sri Sankara Ashram in Karnataka.Sivananda Sharma’s enrolment is so special because he belonged to Paraya Community one of the Scheduled Caste.

Sivananda Sharma is the youngest son of Shri P R Kunchan and Smt. Thankamma . He was attracted to spiritual world when he was doing his Pre-Degree education and took upanayanam under the guidance of Acharya Narendra Bhushan. This is very good to here in my opinion. The Shankaracharya maths have been some of the most conservative, traditional, and orthodox Hindu instutitions in India. To see someone of a non-dvija birth being aloud to study the Sruti in such a traditional and revered institute, is a step in the right direction in my mind.


Indra, in response to your original post, so much in depth information has been handed down to you. We haven't heard as to if this information is adequate for now or would you like our esteemed members to keep doing more research? Your selection of this topic has brought many dormant accounts back to life, as they thought their input into this complex situation was essential. Indeed, I have heard it said before, you can ask 100 Hindus the same question, and get 100 different answers. This thread definitely demonstrates the diverse nature of opinions and beliefs that exist within our religion.

[devotee]

1. Please you people realise that i have been writing about the history of India and the historical reasons why even today few people study the upanishads and practice the vedic traditions.

2. Enroling with Arya Samaj, visting centres like Ramakrishna Mutt, Self help/realization fellowships, whatever kind of Neo Hindu sages you may name that do weekend crash courses, etc this is not the traditional way Upanishads are studied and have been studied in the past. It is a very recent development that started with western colonialism and western interest in the study of Upanishads and the printing of translations that were available to all. Modern neo Hindu organisations will always only ask you for your money and service, not for your caste that is maybe becaused they all only desire your best :)

There is a saying in Hindi, "Naani ke aage nanihaal ki baaten" (Trying to tell stories of your grandparent's house to your grandmother (claiming that you know better than her) !). You are doing exactly the same ! You should not be claiming about which you don't have first hand information. You are trying to somehow prove yourself right and I have no issues with that. I just wanted that people who are new to Hindu Dharma should not get a distorted view of the reality and that purpose has been served, imho.

With this I quit this thread here. :)

OM

[Seeker123]

1. Please you people realise that i have been writing about the history of India and the historical reasons why even today few people study the upanishads and practice the vedic traditions.


Yours may be one reason but other reasons have been provided in this thread.


Enroling with Arya Samaj, visting centres like Ramakrishna Mutt, Self help/realization fellowships, whatever kind of Neo Hindu sages you may name that do weekend crash courses, etc this is not the traditional way Upanishads are studied and have been studied in the past. It is a very recent development that started with western colonialism and western interest in the study of Upanishads and the printing of translations that were available to all. Modern neo Hindu organisations will always only ask you for your money and service, not for your caste that is maybe becaused they all only desire your best :)

Sure we do a lot of things differently compared to 1900 leave alone 2000 BC. So why should we continue to learn Vedanta only by living with a Guru? There are many traditional Gurus/organizations today in India and abroad that provide knowledge without profit. Here is a link providing free traditional Advaita lectures in Chennai.

http://www.vedantavidyarthisangha.org/

It is a misconception that one needs to be born a brahmin to attain Moksha. There are numerous instances of Brahma Vidya being imparted to kings and they attaining Moksha. Vishwamitra was a king. The celeberated 63 Tamil Nayanmars came from different backgrounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayanars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandanar

[MahaHrada]

Yours may be one reason but other reasons have been provided in this thread.

Sure we do a lot of things differently compared to 1900 leave alone 2000 BC. So why should we continue to learn Vedanta only by living with a Guru? There are many traditional Gurus/organizations today in India and abroad that provide knowledge without profit. Here is a link providing free traditional Advaita lectures in Chennai.

http://www.vedantavidyarthisangha.org/

It is a misconception that one needs to be born a brahmin to attain Moksha. There are numerous instances of Brahma Vidya being imparted to kings and they attaining Moksha. Vishwamitra was a king. The celeberated 63 Tamil Nayanmars came from different backgrounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayanars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandanar


These swamis and also mutts cannot depend on air and sun alone so Money or seva will be coming from somewhere.

Nobody said that only brahmins can attain Moksha, on the contrary according to the Tantras and Agamas vedachara is the lowest path, so in my opinion Vedas and Vedanta as the path for those beginning to search for higher knowledge being the simplest and mostly directed towards outward purity of conduct should be studied by the Brahmin community alone, all others should try to attain to the higher knowledge of the Tantras and Agamas which anyway are open for all communities.
It can only be detrimental to try to follow the Vedanta instead of the far more satisfying and evolved philosophy and practise of Yoga Tantras and Agamas which do not only contain all the knowledge of the vedas but aim for an attainment that far exceeds that of the Vedanta. Why should one of free will discard the higher and follow a conduct specific to a tiny community that is not only more demanding with its adherence to strict outward purity and other unnecessary rules of conduct, and at the same time is leading to lesser attainments?

[devotee]

deleted

[Baobobtree]

Namaste all.


Nobody said that only brahmins can attain Moksha, on the contrary according to the Tantras and Agamas vedachara is the lowest path, so in my opinion Vedas and Vedanta as the path for those beginning to search for higher knowledge being the simplest and mostly directed towards outward purity of conduct should be studied by the Brahmin community alone, all others should try to attain to the higher knowledge of the Tantras and Agamas which anyway are open for all communities. I think it's worth clarifying (though I'm certain you would be very aware of this fact), that Brahmins are certainly also welcome and encouraged to follow the path of Tantra and Agama. Not trying to be snooty or anything, just clarifying for those reading who may not be aware.


It can only be detrimental to try to follow the Vedanta instead of the far more satisfying and evolved philosophy and practise of Yoga Tantras and Agamas which do not only contain all the knowledge of the vedas but aim for an attainment that far exceeds that of the Vedanta. Why should one of free will discard the higher and follow a conduct specific to a tiny community that is not only more demanding with its adherence to strict outward purity and other unnecessary rules of conduct, and at the same time is leading to lesser attainments? This is a matter of opinion. Certainly, the Smarta tradition of Adi Shankaracharya, would consider the study of the Upanishads to be much more likely to lead to Mukti, then that of the Tantras or Agamas, though the later are more suited for the common man. They definitely wouldn't claim it leads to lesser attainments (unless I am mistaken, and you are instead refering to the karma kanda rituals of the 4 Veda Samhitas).


Stop following Vedanta and start following Yoga Tantra and Agamas ! I think if MH is right then the why the Yoga Tantra and Agama followers make such a minuscule percentage of whole of Hindu population ! Not to be insulting towards Vedanta, for like you I agree study of the Upanishads and Vedas are of invaluable benefit for anyone wishing to study them, (regardless of what community they are born into) but numbers wise, those who follow Puranas, Itihasas, and/or Agamas/Tantras as their primary discipline greatly outnumber those who study/follow Upanishads and Vedas. That being said, the same liberating truth in the path of the Vedachara, is also reflected in the path of Tantras/Agamas and Puranas.


Because he can enjoy Meat, Sex, liquor and other intoxicating substances freely and still be called spiritual ! Why to control sense-organs unnecessarily ??? Anyone getting attracted ?? Not all of the Tantric and Agamic schools of thought follow Vamarga practices, only a section of Shakta Agamas and Shaiva Agamas do. Many Shakta Agamas follow Dakshinachara path, as well as virtually all Vaishnava Agamas, and the Shaiva Agamas followed by the Shaiva Siddhanta Sampradaya. It is also worth noting that the 4 Veda Samhitas prescribe many rituals involving the eating of meat, and consumption of the intoxicating Soma juice. I'm no follower of Vamarga myself, but I certainly consider it a valid path leading to Mukti.

This thread has strongly diverged from it's original topic, and I feel if we wish to debate about whether Tantra is better than Vedanta, or Vedanta is better than Tantra, a new thread would be in order.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;

devotee writes,


Because he can enjoy Meat, Sex, liquor and other intoxicating substances freely and still be called spiritual ! Why to control sense-organs unnecessarily ??? Anyone getting attracted ??
For record, I have no issues with anyone having any special inclination towards tantra but why attack the Vedanta hiding one's true colors ?


There is another view worth mentioning. The 5m's&#185; as they are called are looked at quite differently in the tantrāloka , offered to us by ācārya abhinavagupta-ji.

The yāga (ceremony) that includes these 5 m's are specifically stated for the vīrya (hero); more on this hero in a moment. In vedānta, there is much to do about pure and impure ( śuddhyaśiddhī). In trika pure is knowledge and impure is ignorance . It is the vīrya and the guru who knows the purity of the light of consciousness (prakāśa). It is without blemish and there is nothing that is profane. This is at the core of the kula yāga (ceremony); even being in contact with the 5 m's there is no blemish.

YET it must be said again, it is for he that has risen above the paśu&#185;. So these things that we may think are reprehensible (niṣiddha&#185;) are not viewed in this light. It is the grace of śiva that brings the desruction of every limitation. The purification in trika is viewing , comprehending and experiencing all as light of consciousness, śiva. Nothing falls out side of this and hence from this view nothing is impure.

Now this whole thing of the 5m's and the yāga (ceremony) is very esoteric and cannot be reviewed in a single post; It is enough to say that the asperiant that does this yāga is well qualified ( by no means entry level).

So, here is the pickle. Over time and through ignorance the 5 m's became to be known as a potential path found in tantra.
Ignorance of the proper use, its symbol, all that it provides gets lost in the the mirky world of moha.

praṅam

words

5m's or pa&#241;camarkāra - madya, māṁsa, matsya, mudrā , maithuna i.e. wine (intoxicating drink), meat, fish, parched grain, and sexual congress.
paśu - any tethered animal; the ignorant are considered paśu, as they are tethered to the senses; ignornace of their own Self.
niṣiddha - warded off , kept back , restrained , checked , prevented from , forbidden

[devotee]

Namaste all,

I deleted my earlier post which was in reply to MH's assertion that Agama and Tantra are better path to follow. I don't think it added any value to this thread.

Namaste Baob,

The post was in a specific context which was based on my discussion with MH long back, so unless you know the context, you won't understand what I wanted to say.

Some of my comments on your post :

a) My post was specific to Vaamaachaar tradition. So, you should read it with that context in mind. Hindus, in general, have maintained a distance with this tradition. You may consider it a valid path ... I also said that it is a valid path ... but it is not so easy as it looks. ... and there are very few followers of Vaamaachaar in today's Hindu society. If you say otherwise, imho, you have no idea what you are asserting.

b) Agamas have come from tradition and in today's Hindu tradition they have got mixed with Vedic rituals. I don't think there is any fight between Agama and the Vedic tradition.

c)

numbers wise, those who follow Puranas, Itihasas, and/or Agamas/Tantras as their primary discipline greatly outnumber those who study/follow Upanishads and Vedas. That being said, the same liberating truth in the path of the Vedachara, is also reflected in the path of Tantras/Agamas and Puranas.

You have mixed Tantra/Agama/Itihasas/Puranas.

This thread has lost its direction, so let's stop it here. :)

OM

[Jainarayan]

I just finished reading Juan Mascaró's selection from the Upanishads. I have Eknath Easwaran's, with commentaries and introduction, which I haven't read yet.

My question is this: Are the Upanishads far over the head of the average reader? Could I be missing something? The verses Mascaró selected were beautiful, and poetic (especially the Śvetāśvatara Upanishad) and I remember some of the stories of the others: Nachiketa and Yama; Yajnavalkya, Maitreyi and King Janaka.

But it seems to me that they were saying the same thing in different ways, repeating the same concept using different examples and stories... Brahman is all, and all is Brahman. Maybe it was the writing style Mascaró used, and his selections; maybe I will get more from Eknath's version?

[Maya3]

I just finished reading Juan Mascaró's selection from the Upanishads. I have Eknath Easwaran's, with commentaries and introduction, which I haven't read yet.

My question is this: Are the Upanishads far over the head of the average reader? Could I be missing something? The verses Mascaró selected were beautiful, and poetic (especially the Śvetāśvatara Upanishad) and I remember some of the stories of the others: Nachiketa and Yama; Yajnavalkya, Maitreyi and King Janaka.

But it seems to me that they were saying the same thing in different ways, repeating the same concept using different examples and stories... Brahman is all, and all is Brahman. Maybe it was the writing style Mascaró used, and his selections; maybe I will get more from Eknath's version?


I don´t think it´s over most peoples heads.
In fact it was Eaknath version of the Upanishads that really made me realize how much I love Hinduism.
Granted, I had already thought about God and the Universe in similar terms, and reading the Upanishads was more a confirmation that there are other people who feel the same. But it put it a more concise and better explained form then what I personally had thought.

I don´t know how someone who has been raised with another religion would think of it? I never have and I always had my own thoughts on things.

Maya

[Jainarayan]

Thanks. So then maybe it is the way Mascar&#243; translated and presented them. Instead of re-reading the book to see what I missed, I will go to Eknath's. I am the same way, as you said "I had already thought about God and the Universe in similar terms". It is what I've believed for a long time even before coming to Hinduism.

[Arjuni]

Namasté, all,

I neglected to revisit this thread after the first two pages of commentary, and am stunned at what I've returned to find. I didn't intend for my question to start a heated debate, but at the same time, thought of the Upaniṣads is certainly not a bad thing.

Indra, in response to your original post, so much in depth information has been handed down to you. We haven't heard as to if this information is adequate for now or would you like our esteemed members to keep doing more research?
Believer, the original question was really more of a topical 'survey' sort of request, as in, has anyone encountered this attitude, what do you think of it, etc. -so the members really went above and beyond, to present many reasons that the attitude exists. I don't specifically require more information, but won't discourage anyone from continued discussion!

Regarding translations, Maya and TBTL, I've not personally read either of the versions you mention. I'm currently working my way through the ginormous volume translated by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, and am finding it very useful so far.

Another version I like very much is The Ten Principal Upaniṣads of Shree Purohit Swami and W.B. Yeats. This translation is neither completely accurate, nor an authoritative scholarly version. But there is grace and delicacy and poetry in it, and these qualities serve to translate the texts' wondrous, inquisitive vitality into our comparatively clunky language.

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.



Regarding translations, Maya and TBTL, I've not personally read either of the versions you mention. I'm currently working my way through the ginormous volume translated by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, and am finding it very useful so far.

Is it The Principal Upanisads by S. Radhakrishnan, 958 pages? :eek: Funny you should mention Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan; I am considering his version of The Brahma Sutra. I was told that once I get through the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutra brings it all together. The person described it this way:

The Upanishads are the revelation;
Brahma Sutra is the explanation of that;
Bhagavad Gita shows how to put it into practice.

[Seeker123]

Namasté, all,


Regarding translations, Maya and TBTL, I've not personally read either of the versions you mention. I'm currently working my way through the ginormous volume translated by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, and am finding it very useful so far.

Another version I like very much is The Ten Principal Upaniṣads of Shree Purohit Swami and W.B. Yeats. This translation is neither completely accurate, nor an authoritative scholarly version. But there is grace and delicacy and poetry in it, and these qualities serve to translate the texts' wondrous, inquisitive vitality into our comparatively clunky language.

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

If you are interesting in reading translation of Upanishads not merely for academic knowledge but for spiritual growth it is better to read the translation by a Jnani (self realized person). The question then is who is a Jnani? Since that is difficult to answer the closest one can do is to read/listen to translation by someone who teaches by Sankara Bhasya (if you are interested in Advaita that is).

Just my 2 c

[Sahasranama]

A scholarly translation in English of the principle upanishads is done by Patrick Olivelle.


If you are interesting in reading translation of Upanishads not merely for academic knowledge but for spiritual growth it is better to read the translation by a Jnani (self realized person). The question then is who is a Jnani? Since that is difficult to answer the closest one can do is to read/listen to translation by someone who teaches by Sankara Bhasya (if you are interested in Advaita that is). There is a wealth of traditional bhashyas available on the scriptures. They are mostly written in Sanskrit. In my opinion, it is best to avoid all these English translations that claim to be spiritual or poetic and instead use a scholarly translation that will assist you in understanding the Sanskrit language. Once you can read Sanskrit, all these spiritual books written in English become worthless.

[Believer]

Namaste,


.....I didn't intend for my question to start a heated debate....
Hot molten lava was simmering just below the surface. Your topic was merely used to went out the bottled up negative vibes. You did not cause anything to happen, except to cool down the room after that heated debate among some of our elite members. ;)

Pranam.

[Arjuni]

Namast&#233;,

Is it The Principal Upanisads by S. Radhakrishnan, 958 pages?
Yes. I was fortunate to find a hardcover edition in my local used bookstore.

If you are interesting in reading translation of Upanishads not merely for academic knowledge but for spiritual growth it is better to read the translation by a Jnani (self realized person).
Well-taken point. Ultimately it comes down to a difference of approach: when reading any work in translation - provided it is not incredibly lengthy - I read several different English versions of it.
I do this because, lacking the original language, I am subject to a particular author's preferences, word choices, and interpretations; essentially, I am reading the work as already filtered through someone else's mind.
Looking at some different versions of a text, I form a composite view of it and am less vulnerable to any one particular translator's bias.

In my opinion, it is best to avoid all these English translations that claim to be spiritual or poetic and instead use a scholarly translation that will assist you in understanding the Sanskrit language. Once you can read Sanskrit, all these spiritual books written in English become worthless.
Yes, learning the original tongue is indeed the ideal and the one that is best to aim towards.
For myself, at two full-time jobs (I am writing this on lunch break), my own reading and writing must come in bits and pieces - a chapter on the bus here, a single section of a text there. Long blocks of time for dedicated study are sadly rare. (I also retain a fondness for the 'spiritual version' I mentioned, as my very first read of any Hindu text.)

A scholarly translation in English of the principle upanishads is done by Patrick Olivelle.
And the thread comes full circle: the course I mentioned in the very first post? It is the Vedas and Upaniṣads offered by Oxford, and so naturally, Olivelle's (Oxford University Press) translation was used as course material. And one of the first videos in the online learning module was a half-hour discussion about the Upaniṣads, between Olivelle, and the course instructor who spoke the quote that began this entire discussion.

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

[Sahasranama]

Namaste.
Is it The Principal Upanisads by S. Radhakrishnan, 958 pages? :eek: Funny you should mention Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan; I am considering his version of The Brahma Sutra. I was told that once I get through the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutra brings it all together. The person described it this way:


S. Radhakrishnan is notorious for having misrepresented the advaita vedanta of Shankaracharya. I would avoid reading his books.

[Jainarayan]

Thanks, forewarned is forearmed. I've heard the same about some other translators. That's why I name drop.

[Seeker123]

A scholarly translation in English of the principle upanishads is done by Patrick Olivelle.

There is a wealth of traditional bhashyas available on the scriptures. They are mostly written in Sanskrit. In my opinion, it is best to avoid all these English translations that claim to be spiritual or poetic and instead use a scholarly translation that will assist you in understanding the Sanskrit language. Once you can read Sanskrit, all these spiritual books written in English become worthless.


I meant the interpretation by Swami Dayananda Saraswathi (Arsha Vidya Gurukulam) or his disciples for example. I like the spiritual over the scholarly as I feel at least they have "practiced" what they preach and speak from inner experience as opposed to merely providing a good translation. Moreover they have gone thorugh the Guru-Sishya parampara too.

I agree with Indraneela that it is very hard to learn to read Sanskrit at that level and avoid these translations.

[Sahasranama]

I was looking at this on India Exotic Art. I don't have these books, so I can't technically recommend them, but since they have the Sanskrit text of the prasthana traya with Shankara's bhashyas, all translated into English, they look interesting. You could check them out to see if they are worthwhile.

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/shankaracharya-s-commentary-on-brahmasutra-only-edition-with-sanskrit-text-of-bhashya-and-its-english-translation-NAC864/

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/prasthanathraya-volume-ii-isa-kena-katha-and-mandukya-upanishad-with-karika-of-gaudapada-only-edition-with-shankaracharya-s-commentary-in-original-sanskrit-with-english-translation-IHJ068/

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/prasthanathraya-volume-iii-prasna-mundaka-taittiriya-aitareya-upanishads-only-edition-with-shankaracharya-s-commentary-in-original-sanskrit-with-english-translation-IHJ083/

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/prasthanathraya-volume-v-brihadaranyaka-upanishad-only-edition-with-shankaracharya-s-commentary-in-original-sanskrit-with-english-translation-IHJ070/

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/prasthanatraya-bhagavad-gita-only-edition-with-shankaracharya-s-commentary-in-original-sanskrit-with-english-translation-IHJ092/

[Sahasranama]

I meant the interpretation by Swami Dayananda Saraswathi (Arsha Vidya Gurukulam) or his disciples for example. I like the spiritual over the scholarly as I feel at least they have "practiced" what they preach and speak from inner experience as opposed to merely providing a good translation. Moreover they have gone thorugh the Guru-Sishya parampara too.

I agree with Indraneela that it is very hard to learn to read Sanskrit at that level and avoid these translations.
Arsha Vidya Gurukula is a very good institute, but still I would only use them as a stepping stone to reading the real Sanskrit.

[Ravi Narayan]

Hari Om

Upanishads and Aranyakas are discussed in depth during our weekly online (free) sessions through Skype organized by Divine Life Society from New York, every Saturday at 7 AM, if interested send 'Add Request' to 'DLSNewYork' from your skype account. We take up one topic by one topic and exchange our ideas. Sometime Swamijis from Rishikesh also come online to answer difficult questions, Please participate if you are interested and my email is dlsusa.org@gmail.com

Ravi Narayan

[veena]

I am definitely interested. I will e-mail the link. :)