Ashwamedh problem

[dhyandev]

I didnot know what ashwmedh is,so I wiki it.& here's what I got-----

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashwamedha


After I got out of the initial shock,I saw griffith & company .So I relaxed out.obsene creations(no translations )of a perverted mind

Please all those who have some knowledge on this please enlighten me & help edit this wiki.

[philosoraptor]

I didnot know what ashwmedh is,so I wiki it.& here's what I got-----

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashwamedha


After I got out of the initial shock,I saw griffith & company .So I relaxed out.obsene creations(no translations )of a perverted mind

Please all those who have some knowledge on this please enlighten me & help edit this wiki.

What is written in wikipedia is not exactly the same as the ashvamedha as I have seen it described elsewhere.

Prior to the sacrifice, the horse is allowed to roam free for one year. If any kingdom or army stopped it, this would result in war between the one who plans to do the sacrifice and the ones who stopped it. The idea is, if other kingdoms allow the horse to roam free, then they are acquiescing to the sacrificer's status as their overlord. I have read nothing about dogs being sacrificed.

In the Ramayana, prior to performing putra-kamesthi-yagna, Dasharatha does perform ashvamedha-yagna. It is mentioned there that Queen Kausalya had to spend the night with the horse prior to the sacrifice. However, nothing is mentioned about bestiality or even mock-copulation. Here is a point on which commentary is sorely needed, as the horse is clearly symbolic of something, perhaps many things.

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, in its opening mantras, describes the symbolism of the sacrificial horse. I found it somewhat helpful but still not entirely useful for understanding some of the nuances of the yagna.

[dhyandev]

I went to a sanskrit book fair.there i saw something on the various meanings of the word ashwa(enery or power i donot remember & i didnt pay any attension http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=91636&postcount=94).
But
It is mentioned there that Queen Kausalya had to spend the night with the horse prior to the sacrifice. saying this is absolute crappy translation

[philosoraptor]

I went to a sanskrit book fair.there i saw something on the various meanings of the word ashwa(enery or power i donot remember & i didnt pay any attension).
But saying this is absolute crappy translation

Pranams. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but given that you have not explained why the translation is "crappy," I will venture a guess that you don't know Sanskrit and are not actually qualified to comment on the accuracy of any translation.

This is how it is translated in the Gita Press translation, and its translator is clearly a devotee and an insider to the tradition. I also checked the online translation at www.valmikiramayan.net and found it there also:



patatriNaa tadaa saardham susthitena ca cetasaa |
avasat rajaniim ekaam kausalyaa dharma kaamyayaa || 1-14-34

34. kausalyaa= Queen Kausalya; susthitena cha chetasaa= with composed - impassively; dharma kaamaayaa= dharma, desiring – for achieving results; patatriNaa saartham= with horse, for results; [where patatri = also means a bird, one that swiftly flew away like a bird; the sacrificed ritual horse is equated with the Divine Eagle – garuDa - that conducts the oblations; ekaam rajaniim avasat = one, night, she resided with that horse that flew away.

Queen Kausalya desiring the results of ritual disconcertedly resided one night with that horse that flew away like a bird. [1-14-34]

There is nothing explicitly mentioned about bestiality, as some of the anti-Hindu bigots have a tendency to claim. What is obvious from the above shloka is that the horse and the act of spending one night with it is supposed to be symbolic of something. Note that there is nothing inherently difficult to believe about this. When we do puja, many actions that we do are symbolic of something and have to be meditated as such. For example, we offer water in a spoon before the deity, while in the mind we are supposed to meditate on actually washing the feet of the deity.

What is definitely needed here is commentary. Merely claiming that it never happened won't convince critics who can access these translations just as easily as I can.

[Sahasranama]

I will not comment on this subject, since the last time I did I was banned. But I will offer the relevant scanned pages from the Shukla Yajurveda that deal with this subject. I have scanned these pages and uploaded them on scribd.com. I request everyone not to engage me in discussion about this material. This is just to inform you. The text is in Sanskrit with the commentaries of Mahidhara and Uvata and there are Hindi translations of each mantra.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100685781/Img

Don't shoot the messenger.

[dhyandev]

_/\_ philsoraptor
what i meant from crappy was the inherent meanings which the translators are capable of giving.it is sort of read b/w the lines concept

_/\_Sahasranama
don't be scared we are in the same boat( i too got warning):D .BTW who is the publisher if ur books.PM me ur scribd link

[Sahasranama]

_/\_Sahasranama
BTW who is the publisher if ur books.PM me ur scribd link

The scribd link is in my previous post, is it not working?

Publisher is chaukhamba vidya bhavan.

[Believer]

Namaste,

Don't shoot the messenger.
The message givers/writers are gone, you are the only one left to shoot at. ;)

Pranam.

[philosoraptor]

That's too bad that we aren't allowed to talk about it. This is one thing I would think a Hinduism forum would be very useful for - to clarify the meaning of seemingly "strange" practices for the benefit of all.

[philosoraptor]

_/\_ philsoraptor
what i meant from crappy was the inherent meanings which the translators are capable of giving.it is sort of read b/w the lines concept

Dhyandev,

The Gita Press translator is very respectful of the source material. If I have any one criticism here, it is only that he did not offer any footnotes/commentary on this particular shloka as he usually does for other shlokas with unusual meanings. It would have been helpful in this case. But its absence does not imply anything vulgar, nor did the translation as given imply anything untoward.

[Twilightdance]

As such since there is no living unbroken tradition of ashwamedha being kept alive for many many many years now [except psuedo re-enactments in AP], I don't believe trying to find meaning to "strange" practices will lead anywhere and won't be accurate at any rate. It will be just for the present day Hindu's personal satisfaction to overlay his modern thinking on things he cannot explain.

The only living traditions of srauta rituals survive in the true sense [not being re-enactments] in kerala, but they do not do Ashwamedha or similar srauta rituals. Karma kanda does not need puranic and philosophic justification of the modern hindu and if at all studied must be studied in its own context - whose only surviving fragments are in kerala.

[PARAM]

Ashvmedha have nothing to do with killing the Horse, anti-Hindus have a habit to always use translation of Yagya as "sacrifice", this is false translations based on the theories of **** writers like Griffith, Max Muller, Keith, Child, Piggott etc.

Anti Hindus under Hindu names as the alter egos of Zakir Naik, spread this in Sadhu uniform, they only act as a Sadhu, these hypocritical also make all crappy Adharmi claims.


True Hindu must believe in ॐ

Those who don’t realize ॐ and Yoga Philosophy, they cannot know the real meaning of Vedas (Rig-Veda 1/164/16)

Krishna himself say this.
There is no violence in Vedas. Bhagwad Gita (17.14)

[philosoraptor]

Ashvmedha have nothing to do with killing the Horse, anti-Hindus have a habit to always use translation of Yagya as "sacrifice", this is false translations based on the theories of **** writers like Griffith, Max Muller, Keith, Child, Piggott etc.

Namaste,

Param, please acquaint yourselves with our scriptures before issuing blanket condemnations of those who hold true to scriptural statements which you disagree with.

Maharaja Dasharatha's ashvamedha-yagna did involve sacrifice of a horse, as well as several other animals. This is explicitly mentioned in the Bala-Kanda of the Ramayana of Valmiki.

According to the 5th chapter of Manu-Samhita, the animals sacrificed in such a yagna get a higher birth (i.e. as human or deva).

These yagnas were the standard in the ages prior to Kali-yuga when proper brahmins were present who could execute the sacrifices flawlessly and for whom the spoken mantras did bear their fruits.


Krishna himself say this.
There is no violence in Vedas. Bhagwad Gita (17.14)


He said no such thing. Gita 17.14 actually says:



deva-dvija-guru-prājña-
pūjanaṁ śaucam ārjavam
brahmacaryam ahiṁsā ca
śārīraṁ tapa ucyate

Word for word:
deva — of the Supreme Lord; dvija — the brāhmaṇas; guru — the spiritual master; prājña — and worshipable personalities; pūjanam — worship; śaucam — cleanliness; ārjavam — simplicity; brahmacaryam — celibacy; ahiṁsā — nonviolence; ca — also; śārīram — pertaining to the body; tapaḥ — austerity; ucyate — is said to be.

Translation:
Austerity of the body consists in worship of the Supreme Lord, the brāhmaṇas, the spiritual master, and superiors like the father and mother, and in cleanliness, simplicity, celibacy and nonviolence.

In short, if one wants to defend Hinduism, one must first understand Hinduism. If one defends Hinduism by quoting all sorts of revisionist theories, one will merely look like a laughing stock in front of those critics who actually read the texts. And make no mistake - they do read the texts. Therefore, we must understand the texts better than they.

regards,

[dhyandev]

The Gita Press translator is very respectful of the source material.
Ok gitapress guys are believable but still....
it is only that he did not offer any footnotes/commentary on this particular shloka as he usually does for other shlokas with unusual meanings.
the translator must have been himself foxed in this shloka

Param bhai
total agreement with you.

[PARAM]

koran
quran
kuran
qoran
flesh
sex
jihad
minimum 72 virgins for terrorists
rivers of alcohol in jannat
and more


Your polluted knowledge is just come out from crappy Islamic translation.
All the Dharma Grantham support a Yagya can be done as free from violence. Even Vishwamitra requested Dashratha for support, when his enemies were polluting his Yagya by throwing flesh, bones, blood of animals into it.


You have no knowledge of any meaning of a Shaloks, what you did is just a copy-paste without understanding anything, this even include Islamic websites as your source of knowledge.

BG 17.14 reveals the purity of Vedas and it actually say there are all sattvik qualities in Vedas and nothing is with violence.


Your claim from Manu Samriti Chapter 5?
Those who sell bring, use animals for slaying, those who permit the slaying of animals, those who purchase, cook, prepare, serve, eat the meat, they are all murderers.
Manu Samhita (Chapter 5)
This is for everyone including you Muslims

In short, if you want to attack Hinduism, then must first understand to not to target those who actually understand Hinduism. If you continue attacking Hinduism by quoting all sorts of ostensible theories, you exposed your hypocrite in front of those learned who actually understand the Mantra or Shalokas. And make no mistake - We do understand better, and you are nothing but just a plain hypocrite.

[satay]

Admin Note

Where is mention of maleccha scripture of kooran in Phil's post? How come you are showing muslim reference and quoted him?

[PARAM]

Admin Note

Where is mention of maleccha scripture of kooran in Phil's post? How come you are showing muslim reference and quoted him?

Which Dharma Grantham claims that Varna system is birth based?
Which Dharma Grantham supports animal slaughter for any Dahrmik deeds?

On 20 July, this guy accepted his ignorance on Manu Samriti,
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=9822&page=3
(post number 27)
Now in two days he is giving Chapter 5 example, which is provided by Muslims and Christians.

Can you find any of his claim exist in any DhaRMa GranThaM?

If he believe in them, so what is wrong?

Bring Yajvanacharya, we all will know if he accepts those translations done by him.

[philosoraptor]

Param, why did you falsely ascribe statements about Koran and Islam to me?

[satay]

namaste Param,

You did not answer my question. Where in is post has Phil referred to maleccha scriptures of muslims?

BTW, my own position on varna is irrelevant here but I also do believe in varna by birth as the scriptures say otherwise every tom, dick and pappu or musla can be a brahmin.


Which Dharma Grantham claims that Varna system is birth based?
Which Dharma Grantham supports animal slaughter for any Dahrmik deeds?

On 20 July, this guy accepted his ignorance on Manu Samriti,
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=9822&page=3
(post number 27)
Now in two days he is giving Chapter 5 example, which is provided by Muslims and Christians.

Can you find any of his claim exist in any DhaRMa GranThaM?

If he believe in them, so what is wrong?

Bring Yajvanacharya, we all will know if he accepts those translations done by him.

[PARAM]

namaste Param,

You did not answer my question. Where in is post has Phil referred to maleccha scriptures of muslims?

All his claims are based on works of Zakir Naik and available in Muslim websites, he is just providing the copied item. Take claim of his joke on Ramayana, Mahabharata and Manu Samhita you can find his answers only in Islamic websites, there is no reason to change it and make Hindu claim.



BTW, my own position on varna is irrelevant here but I also do believe in varna by birth as the scriptures say otherwise every tom, dick and pappu or musla can be a brahmin.


P Chidambaram, Manish Tiwari, Janardan Dwivedi, Rajeev Shukla etc can be described as Brahmin? Those who took birth to Brahmin parents but converted to Islam and Christianity, can they be claimed as Brahmin? Any tom, dick and pappu or musla can become a Brahmin only in birth based system. There are countless proofs even today, and aren't descendants of Ram and Krishna and even saptrishis are divided into sc/st/obc/general in India?

Which Dharma Grantham says Varna is birth based? Can anyone prove it in the original itihasa?

If birth is the reason then how Trishanku was a Chandal despite born as ikshwaku kShaTriYa? How Vishwamitra was a BrAHmiN despite born as a kShaTriYa? How sons of Vishvamitra become Shudra? How Manuji Maharaj becomes a BrAHmiN himself when he was kShaTriYa in earlier life? How Ved Vyasa, Jabal etc were BrAHmiN, when their biological fathers were not known? How Matang was a brahmin when he was born as a Chandal? How come sons of Bharat (Shakuntla's son) were Shudra? How grandson of Bharat (Ram's brother) was a BrAHmiN? Vashishtha, Prashar, Bhardwaja, Atri, Kashyap etc all were Brahmins, but how?

Simple answer - Higher Varna is not for any tom, dick and pappu or musla.

But if anyone disagrees, then prove it from itihasa when everyone was following the Vedas. Just making claim and providing quotation is not a proof.


This isn't stops here, he is also making claims of animal slaughters in yagyas, but whatever he said comes direct from islamic websites. This thread is for Ashvmedha, right!

Can he prove animal slaughters during the Vedic time that he is claiming? He even blames Krishna for helping and saving murderers.


Now take his final claim, this attacker on Hinduism himself is saying -

In short, if one wants to defend Hinduism, one must first understand Hinduism. If one defends Hinduism by quoting all sorts of revisionist theories, one will merely look like a laughing stock in front of those critics who actually read the texts. And make no mistake - they do read the texts. Therefore, we must understand the texts better than they.

Now in short he knows what is going on and he want everyone who is defending Hinduism as a laughing stock in front of critics (Muslims+Christians+Communists)
But he don't know a true Hindu will never give up. Even Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpar Rai, Chandra Shekhar Azad, Ram Prasad Bismil, Subrahmaniam Bharti, Veer Savarkar etc become laughing stock among those critics, but they never give up.

[satay]

Admin Note

namaste Param,

Please provide a link to muslim sites where I can find the same information that Phil has posted so that I can take action.



But if anyone disagrees, then prove it from itihasa when everyone was following the Vedas. Just making claim and providing quotation is not a proof.


You haven't read the threads on varna in HDF so your confusion on this issue.

Are you born in a shudra family?

[PARAM]

Admin Note

namaste Param,

Please provide a link to muslim sites where I can find the same information that Phil has posted so that I can take action.


I will never promote a Muslim link here but I will send you in PM


You haven't read the threads on varna in HDF so your confusion on this issue.

There are many of them, bring Yajvanacharya to describe those threads. He knows better than you or you know better than him?



Are you born in a shudra family?

This is not the answer of my question, read my question again.

[satay]

namaste Param,

First, Please calm down. ! I am not your enemy!


I will never promote a Muslim link here but I will send you in PM


I am waiting.



There are many of them, bring Yajvanacharya to describe those threads. He knows better than you or you know better than him?


No clue what you are talking about. Please take a deep breath or wait for a couple of days before posting.





This is not the answer of my question, read my question again.

What question?

[dhyandev]

At the sight of words 'asvamedha, gomedha, purushmedha, ajmedha' there
is a general tendency to interpret it to denote as
hinsa/sacrifice/killing. 'Medha' word's verb or dhatu is 'medhri'.
'medhrisangame hinsayam cha' i.e. to enhance pure intellect, to
inculcate love and integration among the people and also hinsa i.e.
killing (this dhatu conveys these three meanings). But it does not
always mean killing or sacrifice and in Sanskrit no literal
translation will do where a particular word carries varied meanings
and it has to be applied judiciously and thoughtfully keeping in view
the context of the text. The words 'purushmedha' and 'nriyajna' are
synonyms. In Manusmriti the word 'nriyajna' has been defined
as 'nriyajnoatithipoojanam' (Manusmriti 3.70). It means the pooja or
honour of the guests. If we take the meaning of the root 'medhri' as
sangamanarth it will come to be interpreted as to organize the people
for virtuous deeds or to enhance the love and equanimity among them
i.e. it would be 'nriyajna' or 'purushmedh'. It may be pertinent to
mention here that 'nrimedha' is a risi of some vedic hymns of
Samveda. It can never mean the one who kills or sacrifices the human
beings. Consequently, the terms followed by medha always do not
signify killing/sacrifice and therefore the interpretations made by
the Western scholars are utterly wrong and unacceptable.

In Shatpath Brahmana (13.1.6) it is stated "Rashtram va asvamedhah"
i.e. asvamedha means to manage or run the affairs of the rashtra
(country) in a befitting manner.

In the Shantiparva of Mahabharata (3.336) there is mention of
asvamedha of the king Vasu in which numerous risis and learned men
participated. In this context it is clearly mentioned "n tatra
pashughato-abhoot" i.e. there was no killing of any animal. Further in
this Parva at 3.327, the following is stated in context with
'ajamedh':

Ajairyajneshu yashtavyamiti vai vaidiki shruti
Ajasanjnani beejani chhaganno hantumarhatha
Naishah dharmah satam devah yatra vadhyeta vai pashuh

It means that whenever it is stated to use aja for performance of
yajna, it means the seeds called 'aja' have to be used. Here it does
not mean a goat. It is not proper to kill goats and it does not
behoove the virtuous people to indulge in killing of the animals.

Sw. Dayanand Saraswati in his book "An introduction to the Vedas" at
p. 448-449 states that God is Jamadagni i.e. Ashvamedha. An empire is
like a horse and the subjects like other inferior animals. As other
animals, the strength, so the subjects are weaker than the state
assembly. The glory and splendour of an empire consists in wealth,
gold etc. and in administration of justice". (Shatpath Brahmana
XIII.2.2.14-17) It is further stated that God's name is Ashva also
because He pervades the whole universe (ashva comes from the root
'ash' which means to pervade).

The above derivations call for our cautious approach and take upon
ourselves the task of removing the mist caused by misinterpretations
to see the truth which can be one and only one and feel proud of our
heritage.
Hereby it will also be revealed that these Western scholars could not
derive the right and intended spirit of our ancient Rishis and have
erred immensely. In the realm of the Vedic interpretation, we owe debt
to Swami Dayanand Saraswati (1825-1883), the founder of Aryasamaj who
took us back to the Vedas. His commentaries were based on the Nighantu
and Yaska's Nirukta and he thought deep and delved deep to arrive at
the rightful adhyatmik and yogic spirit of the mantras. The opinion of
a great saint-philosopher Sri Aurobindo Ghosh will be the most
pertinent to quote in this regard. "In the matter of Vedic
interpretation I am convinced that whatever may be the final complete
interpretation, Dayananda will be honoured as the first discoverer of
the right clues. Amidst the chaos and obscurity of old ignorance and
age long misunderstanding his was the eye of direct vision that
pierced to the truth and fastened on that which was essential. He had
found the keys of the doors that time had closed and rent asunder the
seals of the imprisoned fountains". AT THIS STAGE IT IS DESIRABLE THAT
WE APPROACH THIS IMPORTANT ASPECT TO ENDORSE AND ACCEPT THE RIGHTFUL
INTERPRETATIONS INSTEAD OF CLINGING TO DEFECTIVE LITERAL TRANSLATIONS
OF THE VEDAS WHICH ARE REVELATIONS BY THE ALMIGHTY GOD WHO BLESSED US
WITH THIS DIVINE KNOWLEDGE TO GUIDE OUR PATH SINCE THE VEDIC
REVELATION WAS SYNCHRONOUS WITH MAN'S FIRST APPEARANCE ON EARTH. How
can our creator prescribe offerings of his own creatures? After
independence, this aspect should have received due attention but it is
sad that this remained untapped and even the Sanskrit language came
under cloud when a Rajya Sabha nominated Christian member Frank
Anthony introduced a bill to drop this sacred language from the eighth
schedule of languages enshrined in the Indian constitution in 1977.
There is no doubt that some Western scholars did an appreciable job to
introduce the Vedas to the outside world which inspired the scholars
to learn Sanskrit to benefit from the treasure of wisdom of Vedic
Rishis but unfortunately, it followed a wrong path without application
of their inner mind or intellect as was done by the devoted disciple
of Swami Virajanand who was actually blind of eyes but he imparted
such vision and deep knowledge to Dayanand that he clung to the soul
and spirit of the Vedas and it is our bounden duty to follow this path
to understand the sacred words of God which can never be wrong and are
ever infallible.
Hereby it will also be revealed that these Western scholars could not
derive the right and intended spirit of our ancient Rishis and have
erred immensely. In the realm of the Vedic interpretation, we owe debt
to Swami Dayanand Saraswati (1825-1883), the founder of Aryasamaj who
took us back to the Vedas. His commentaries were based on the Nighantu
and Yaska's Nirukta and he thought deep and delved deep to arrive at
the rightful adhyatmik and yogic spirit of the mantras. The opinion of
a great saint-philosopher Sri Aurobindo Ghosh will be the most
pertinent to quote in this regard. "In the matter of Vedic
interpretation I am convinced that whatever may be the final complete
interpretation, Dayananda will be honoured as the first discoverer of
the right clues. Amidst the chaos and obscurity of old ignorance and
age long misunderstanding his was the eye of direct vision that
pierced to the truth and fastened on that which was essential. He had
found the keys of the doors that time had closed and rent asunder the
seals of the imprisoned fountains". AT THIS STAGE IT IS DESIRABLE THAT
WE APPROACH THIS IMPORTANT ASPECT TO ENDORSE AND ACCEPT THE RIGHTFUL
INTERPRETATIONS INSTEAD OF CLINGING TO DEFECTIVE LITERAL TRANSLATIONS
OF THE VEDAS WHICH ARE REVELATIONS BY THE ALMIGHTY GOD WHO BLESSED US
WITH THIS DIVINE KNOWLEDGE TO GUIDE OUR PATH SINCE THE VEDIC
REVELATION WAS SYNCHRONOUS WITH MAN'S FIRST APPEARANCE ON EARTH. How
can our creator prescribe offerings of his own creatures? After
independence, this aspect should have received due attention but it is
sad that this remained untapped and even the Sanskrit language came
under cloud when a Rajya Sabha nominated Christian member Frank
Anthony introduced a bill to drop this sacred language from the eighth
schedule of languages enshrined in the Indian constitution in 1977.
There is no doubt that some Western scholars did an appreciable job to
introduce the Vedas to the outside world which inspired the scholars
to learn Sanskrit to benefit from the treasure of wisdom of Vedic
Rishis but unfortunately, it followed a wrong path without application
of their inner mind or intellect as was done by the devoted disciple
of Swami Virajanand who was actually blind of eyes but he imparted
such vision and deep knowledge to Dayanand that he clung to the soul
and spirit of the Vedas and it is our bounden duty to follow this path
to understand the sacred words of God which can never be wrong and are
ever infallible.
The Myth of the Holy Cow by D.N. Jha published by Verso, London, 2002
is the most damaging book in its contents since the sole intention of
the author has been to prove that all ancient Hindu scriptures
particularly the Vedas and Shatpath Brahmana etc. uphold beef-eating
and this has been the way of life of the Aryans who were our ancestors
since the term Hindu came to be introduced much later. The author has
cited references from the Vedas, Brahmanas, Upanishads etc. to prove
his thesis which perhaps he chose to be the sole mission of his life
even though he comes from a Brahmin family and he has dedicated his
so called prestigious book to his kin in Rajrani (a symbol of
motherhood). Aryans revered cow as a mother and it is really an irony
that a son of Bharat has taken immense pains to prove something which
is far from truth and also it injures the sentiments of millions of
Hindus and in order to demolish his thesis an effort is being hereby
made to trace each and every reference cited by him in the book and
reveal the truth and nothing but the truth. To commence with,
citations quoted from the Rgveda are being dealt with beginning from
the very first Mandala of Rigveda
In the context of the commentary/translation of the Vedas by Max
Muller it will be relevant to point out the opinion of Mr. Boulanger,
the editor of Russian edition of The Sacred Books of the East Series
as follows:

"What struck me in Max Muller's translation was a lot of absurdities,
obscene passages and a lot of what is not lucid."

"As far as I can grab the teaching of the Vedas, it is so sublime that
I would look upon it as a crime on my part, if the Russian public
becomes acquainted with it through the medium of a confused and
distorted translation, thus not deriving for its soul that benefit
which this teaching should give to the people".

In his book 'Vedic Hymns', Max Muller himself says: "My translation of
the Vedas is conjectural."

HEREUNDER the glaring difference in substance and the spirit of the
cited Suktas 162 and 163 of the first Mandala of Rigveda is
illustrated to establish that misinterpretation is at the root of this
problem. Each Sukta has its risi and devata; risi depicts 'drashta'
whereas devata depicts the subject matter which facilitates the
understanding of the mantras under respective Sukta.

Sukta 162-

Name of risi: Deerghatama
Name of devata: Mitradyo Lingokta (As per Sw. Dayanand)
: Deerghatama
: Ashva-stuti (As per translation of H.H. Wilson)

Sukta 163-

Name of risi: Deerghatama
Name of devata: Ashvo-agnirdevata (As per Sw.Dayanand)
: Deerghatama
: Ribhuganh (As per translation of HH Wilson)

The above implies that both the Suktas are in glorification of the
horse but our Western enthusiasts and Mr. Jha along with his Indian
ideals have even ignored the very basic lead and gone for crucifixion
of the spirit of mantras which is left to your esteemed judgement.

Sukta 162 has 22 mantras while Sukta 163 has 13 mantras. Mr. Jha
states that in the ashvamedha (horse sacrifice), the most important of
the Vedic public sacrifices, first referred to in the Rigveda in the
afore-stated Suktas (p. 31 of his book).

Sukta 162 in fact deals with the science of applying horse power
(automation) of the fire pervading in the form of energy.

No mantra supports sacrifice of horses. Of course the first mantra has
been translated by Max Muller in a wrong manner as follows:

"May Mitra, Varuna, Aryaman, Ayush, Indra, the Lord of Ribhus and the
Maruta not rebuke us because we shall proclaim at the sacrifice
virtues of the swift horse sprung from the god." (from History of
Ancient Sanskrit Literature). Similarly H.H. Wilson in his translation
based on the commentary of Sayanacarya states as follows:

"Let neither Mitra nor Varuna, Aryaman, Ayu, Indra, Ribhukshin, nor
the Maruts, censure us; when was proclaim in the sacrifice the virtues
of the swift horse sprung from the gods".

Transliterated version of this mantra is given below:

Ma no mitro varuno arymayurindro ribhuksha marutah parikhyan
Yadvajino devajatasya sapteh pravakshyamo vidathe veeryani

Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati in his Hindi commentary has rendered the
translation as follows:

We the performers of yajna in all seasons (vidathe) in the battle
field (yat) whose (vajinah) stormy (devajatasya) learned men and borne
out of the divine virtues (sapte) of the horse (veeryani) unique
performances (pravakshyamah) we shall describe (nah) the daring
performances of our horses (mitrah) friend (varunah) sublime (aryama)
the deliverer of justice (ayuh) the knower (indrah) the all-elevated
or aishvaryavan (ribhuksha) intelligent and (marutah) priests (ma,
pari, khyan) should never disregard these properties.

To easily grasp the spirit of mantra the following translation will be
helpful.

We shall describe here the energy generating virtues of the powerful
horses (planets), added with brilliant properties of the vigorous
force of heat. The learned never dispute these properties.

There is vast difference in the above quoted translations. Obviously
the wrong seeds were sown by Sayan and Mahidhar who were the ideals
adopted by the Western scholars, namely Max Muller, Griffith, Wilson
etc. Sw. Dayanand Saraswati in his book "An Introduction to the Vedas"
has adversely criticised on the commentaries of Sayan and Mahidhar in
context of some of their interpretations of the Vedic hymns. They
could be held responsible for the horrible and horrid interpretations
which suggest as if the Vedas were the texts to lay down the modes of
sacrifices. Is it not a tragedy for the Dharmacharyas/Sanskrit
scholars of this country that they also could not pursue the path
shown by Dayanand and got bogged down only in the rituals of worship
in the temples and no attention was paid to the sources of knowledge
which were the guiding principles of Aryans, our worthy ancestors and
sons of the mother India (Aryavrat) as the Vedas proclaimed man as
'amritasya putras' and we need to follow this path if we want to be
proud of our heritage and hold our head high or otherwise we are going
to be labelled with the legacy of butchers and animal killers who
desired to please different gods by various sacrifices performed in
the yajnas.

Eighth mantra of this Sukta is translated as follows:

The fleet of horses is controlled by holding of bridles and saddles
placed thereon. To make them strong, the grass and cereals are fed to
them. Likewise, the learned people control and regulate their power of
senses and taking nourishing diet.

Wilson's translation is as follows:

May the halter and the heel-ropes of the fleet courser, and the
head-ropes, the girths, and any other (part of the harness); and the
grass that has been put into his mouth; may all these be with you,
(horse), amongst the gods. (THIS IS NOTHING BUT LITERAL AND MECHANICAL
TRANSLATION BEREFT OF THE SUBSTANCE & SPIRIT OF THE MANTRA)

Ninth mantra was again wrongly interpreted by Max Muller, Wilson and
Griffith to translate the word 'kravishah' as the flesh. It is an
adjective of 'ashvasya' and derived from kramu-padavikshepe. Hence it
means 'the pacing horse' and not of the flesh. 'Shamituh' has been
translated by Prof. Max Muller and Wilson as of the immolator.
Griffith has translated it as 'of a slayer'. But etymologically
'sam-alochne' means 'to look at' (with love and peace) and should mean
'a person who looks at the living beings with love and peace and not
slayer'.

Twelfth mantra emphasizes on the qualities of the warrior and its
translation is as follows:

They who crave for the meat of a horse and declare the horse fit to be
killed should be exterminated. Those who keep the fast horse well
trained and disciplined deserve to be praised by us for the strength
of their character and perseverance. (IT CLEARLY DEMOLISHES THE THESIS
OF JHA AND PROVES THAT HE HAS MERELY QUOTED CITATIONS AND HARDLY CARED
TO LOOK AT THE ACTUAL TEXT BUT INSPIRED BY THE FOLLOWING TRANSLATION
OF WILSON):

"Let their exertions be for our good who watch the cooking of the
horse; who say, it is fragrant; therefore give us some: who solicit
the flesh of the horse as alms." (WHAT AN IMMENSE DAMAGE TO THE SPIRIT
OF THE MANTRA).

Mantras 13 to 19 deal with the theme of horse or automation power
while 20 to 22 are devoted to the benefits of Yoga exercises and an
ideal life.

Sukta 163

This Sukta deals with various attributes of learned person, Agni,
science & technology. There are references to the horse to illustrate
its unique qualities of its immense energy likened to Agni (fire),
intelligence, bravery and inbuilt attributes which are at par with
those of the men of wisdom. Perusal of some mantras will bring home
this point.

First mantra includes or rather ends with 'arvan' and this word
denotes as per Y.v. 29.12 vigyanvan athva ashvaiv veguvan vidvan = O
learned person active like the horse.

Second mantra includes the term 'surat ashvam' which means the fast
moving Agni i.e the fire which enables a speedy locomotion.

Third mantra includes the term 'adityah arvan' and here it means the
sun which is all pervading. 'Arvan' means sarvatrapraptah = pervading
all. This term was wrongly translated by Prof. Wilson, Griffith and
others, while both admit in the notes that Yama means Agni, Aditya -
Sun and Trita - Vayu. How can horse be identified with Agni (fire),
sun and the air etc. none has cared to justify. To take 'arva' for
Agni, there is the clear authority of the Taittiriya Brahmana.
(I.36,4).

Fourth mantra includes the word 'arvan' where it is used to mean the
learned and wise people.

Eighth mantra includes the word 'arvan' through which the mighty and
active person has been likened to the horse who bears such
characteristics.

Ninth mantra includes the word 'arvantam' which means vegavantam agnim
ashvam = the rapid horse in the form of Agni (fire, electricity etc.)

Tenth mantra includes the word 'ashva' where it means the bright swift
horses in the form of fire, air, water etc.

Eleventh mantra includes the word 'arvan' and the following
translation of this mantra will endorse our stand that the unique
qualities of the horse are emphasized in Sukta 163:

"O brave person! You are active like a horse, your body is like a
swift vehicle, your mind is like the wind in motion. Your sublime
actions are initiated from the proper use of fire and electricity.
These are spread in all directions like the hoary creatures in the
forests". One can see that this mantra is in praise of highly skilled
technicians.

Wilson's translation reads as follows:

"Your body, horse, is made for motion, your mind is rapid (in
intention) as the wind: the hairs (of your mane) are tossed in
manifold directions; and spread beautiful in the forests." (ANOTHER
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL TRANSLATION)

Twelfth mantra includes the term 'vajyarva' which means Agni
swift (vegavan) like a horse and here in this mantra use of Agni is
highlighted.

Thirteenth and the last mantra of this Sukta contains the word 'arvan'
where it means agnyadashvan = horses in the form of fire, electricity
etc.


Bibliography

Dayanand Saraswati. An introduction to the Vedas; translated from the
original Sanskrit by Ghasi Ram. 3rd edn. Delhi, Sarvadeshik Arya
Pratinidhi Sabha, 1998.

Bharat Bhushan Vidyalankar. Vedon ke sambandh men bharant dharnayen
- mss. Delhi, 2002. 11pp.

Rgveda Samhita with English translation by Swami Satya Prakash
Sarasvati and Satyakam Vidyalankar. Delhi, Veda Pratishthana, 1977.

The Rigveda with Maharishi Dayananda Saraswati's Commentary.
Translated into English by Acharya Dharam Dev Vidya Martanda.
Delhi, Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, 1974.

Rgveda: Hindi Bhashya pratham mandal by Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati.
Delhi, Sarvdeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, 1972.

Rgveda Samhita: Sanskrit text, English translation and notes according
to translation of H.H. Wilson and Bhasya of Sayanacarya edited and
revised with exhaustive introduction and notes by Ravi Prakash Arya
and K.L. Joshi. Delhi, Parimal Publications, 1997. 4 vols.

Vidyanand Saraswati. Aaryon ka aadi desh aur unki sabhyata. Delhi,
Arya Prakashan,2002

{Author is a former Librarian of Indian National Science Academy, New
Delhi. Presently up-pradhan of Aryasamaj, C Block, Janakpuri,New
Delhi. Postal Address: C2A/58, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Telephone:
5525128}

[philosoraptor]

I am agreed with the view that "yagna" does not always mean killing. However, in the context of ashvamedha, I can definitely say in the rAmAyaNa 1.14.36-39, the references to cooking the horse's fat make it undeniable that a literal sacrifice took place. This is unpalatable for us (including me personally), but we must understand that this was a society in which the faith in Vedic mantras was such that they believed it resulted in a better birth for the animal.

Something many netters may find even more unpalatable is the idea of a purusha-yagna, i.e. "human sacrifice." Please note, erstwhile defenders of Hinduism, that I am not bringing this up with a desire to further communist or Islamic goals. I mention this in the spirit of trying to shed light on the subject. In the rAmAyaNa 1.61.8, there is mention of an ashvamedha-yagna of King Ambariisha in which the horse was stolen by Indra, and the king was advised that he could either recover the horse or obtain a human being to stand in its stead. As if that weren't outrageous enough, the King was said to have offered sage Richika 100,000 cows in exchange for one of his sons to use in the sacrifice. The sage refused to part with his oldest son, and his wife refused to part with their youngest son, so the middle son was given. Actually, the middle son pretty much said he would go voluntarily. Then in the next sarga, it is mentioned how this son, whose name was Shunashepa, pleaded from Vishvaamitra to be saved from the sacrifice and yet not deprive the king of the benefit of performing it. This was, in the end, granted. But the point is, it's hard to believe from context that a literal killing was not going to be involved.

FYI, this story is also mentioned in bhAgavata-purANa, except the persons involved were Harishchandra and the son of Varuna. In that story also, Vishvaamitra played a role and the son was ultimately saved from being killed.

[Omkara]

From what I have read,even anti-hindu western scholars like Witzel accept that the purusha medha sacrifice was not literal killing of people.

To phil,I just read in an article that Madhwacharya beleived that the vedas do not condone animal sacrifice,in contrast to the views of shankara and ramanuja.I was not able to find any further information.Do you know anything further on this?

[Omkara]

Shatapata Brahmana 13:6:2:13 makes it clear the victim was not to be killed-
Then a voice said to him, 'Purusha, do not consummate (these human victims): if thou wert to consummate them, man (purusha) would eat man. Accordingly, as soon as fire had been carried round them, he set them free, and offered oblations to the same divinities.

[Omkara]

A few more sources.Griffith says-
...man, the noblest victim, being actually or symbolically sacrificed nstead of the Horse, and men and women of various tribes, figures complexions, characters, and professions being attached to the sacrificial stakes in place of the tame and wild animals enumerated in Book XXIV [VS 24]. These nomina victims were afterwards released uninjured, and, so far as the text of the White Yajurveda goes, the whole ceremony was merely emblematical.

[Omkara]

As for the human sacrifice story, I have been struggling with that one for several months now.It is also found in the Devi Bhagavatam.I have been unable to find a satisfactory explanation.

However,human sacrifice and cannibalism are explicitly condemned in the Bhagavata Purana (5.26.31).

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

Please refer to Brihadaranyaka upanishad for inner meaning of Ashvamedha.

[philosoraptor]

Omkara's remarks are more in line with what I thought purushamedha stood for. However, I can't reconcile those with the story of Shunashepa who was trying to avoid being sacrificed. The story seems to indicate that there literally was a human sacrifice which he was trying to avoid. I don't understand why he would avoid a symbolic sacrifice if it was plainly understood that the killing was not literal.

[Omkara]

I have to date, not found any explanation of the Sunakshepa story.But the story is itself impossible to reconcile with the rest of the purana.Bhagavata Purana (5.26.31) very explicitly condemns human sacrifice.Therefore,the story contradicts both the bhagavatam itself and the shatapatha brahmana.I have not been able to find much data on this.The Purusha medha is mentioned very rarely in vedic literature and most of the references are very vague.

The Shatapatha Brahmana details the procedure of the yagna, and to me,its instructions seem at odds with the account of the story.Link to the relevant section-

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44111.htm

[philosoraptor]

I have to date, not found any explanation of the Sunakshepa story.But the story is itself impossible to reconcile with the rest of the purana.Bhagavata Purana (5.26.31) very explicitly condemns human sacrifice.Therefore,the story contradicts both the bhagavatam itself and the shatapatha brahmana.I have not been able to find much data on this.The Purusha medha is mentioned very rarely in vedic literature and most of the references are very vague.

Interesting point about bhAgavata 5.26.31. I notice that the ISKCON translation interprets this as something that Kali-worshippers do, but that is not actually clear from the Sanskrit. I'm going to check and see who the Gita Press people interpreted it. If this is in fact referring to the "purusha-medha-yagna" of the Vedas, and condemning those who literally kill people, then that would seem to reinforce the idea that it is supposed to be a non-violent sacrifice.

It would be interesting to see whether the story is found in the Maadhva recension of the Bhaagavatam. Madhva was said to have rejected all others as interpolated and only his as the original authored by Vyaasa.



The Shatapatha Brahmana details the procedure of the yagna, and to me,its instructions seem at odds with the account of the story.Link to the relevant section-

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44111.htm


Also of note, the reference to setting the victims free is there, as if killing them was never the real intention. There also appears to be an implicit comparison to the puruSha of the puruSha-sukta, who is "sacrificed" by the devas, but as we all know, does not cease to exist since He is the parama puruSha (at least as far as vedaantins are concerned). If the purushamedha-yagna was intended in some sense to imitate the original parama-purusha's sacrifice, then it would make sense to specifically instruct the sacrifices not to kill the purushas involved.

I still find it odd that Shunashepa would try to avoid the purushamedha-yagna. It's as if the misunderstanding that it's a real human sacrifice was there even in Treta-yuga.... very strange. I would love to believe that this story was just interpolated.

[Omkara]

The article below states(in the section on commonalities between the major commentaries) that madhva said that animal sacrifices are unvedic,so by extension,probably human sacrifices as well.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hindu-ph/#SSH3f.ii

So probably all references to those would be expunged from madhva recensions

[sayak83]

Why is this a problem? As far as I understand the Warrior Class in early India were allowed to eat meat (very pragmatically). if I remember correctly Ram and Laxman often went out hunting to provide for food in the forest.

I may be wrong but here is an excerpt from Mahabharata as well

LXXXIX Vaisampayana (http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/mbh:vaisampayana) said, Having cooked, according to due rites, the other excellent animals that were sacrificed, the priests then sacrificed, agreeably to the injunctions of the scriptures, that steed which had wandered over the whole world. After cutting that horse into pieces, conformably to scriptural directions, they caused Draupadi (http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/mbh:draupadi) of great intelligence, who was possessed of the three requisites of mantras, things, and devotion, to sit near the divided animal. The Brahmanas (http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/mbh:brahmanas) then with cool minds, taking up the marrow of that steed, cooked it duly, O chief of Bharata's (http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/mbh:bharata-s) race. King (http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/mbh:king)Yudhishthira (http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/mbh:yudhishthira) the just, with all his younger brothers, then smelled, agreeably to the scriptures, the smoke, capable of cleansing one from every sin, of the marrow that was thus cooked. The remaining limbs, O king, of that horse, were poured into the fire by the sixteen sacrificial priests possessed of great wisdom.

http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/src-mbh-14:section-89

Please provide the corrected translation if this translation is wrong. There are just too many references of kings and warriors hunting game and eating meat for everything to be symbolized away as Vaishnava sects prefer to do. Does not mean that the later move to non-killing is not commendable.

Not sure if human sacrifice ever happened, probably not. But then why condemn something if it never happened? In Mahabharata too Krishna stops such a sacrifice, clearly some people must have been doing it for it to be condemned on such length in Mahabharata. A practise among kings to publicly sacrifice a defeated king to demonstrate his power in not inconceivable, but it was opposed vehemently I think.

[Omkara]

Given that the only Vaishnava poster on this thread agrees that animals were literally sacrificed,I fail to see any reason for your attack on Vaishnavas

[dhyandev]

I may be wrong but here is an excerpt from Mahabharata as well

Please provide the corrected translation if this translation is wrong. There are just too many references of kings and warriors hunting game and eating meat for everything to be symbolized away as Vaishnava sects prefer to do. Does not mean that the later move to non-killing is not commendable.

.

If the translator is Griffith & associates,you can rubbish the translations
Here is a post from HDF on animal violence http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=87075&postcount=1

[Omkara]

If I recall correctly that is fro the K.M.Ganguli translation.

Dhyandev,Arya Samaj translations of the vedas are worse than the orientalist translations.If you are looking for accurate translations of the vedas,I would recommend Aurobindo Ghosh,Kapali Shastry,Shriram Sharma,Raimon Panikkar,David Frawley and A.C.Bose.

[philosoraptor]

Interesting point about bhAgavata 5.26.31. I notice that the ISKCON translation interprets this as something that Kali-worshippers do, but that is not actually clear from the Sanskrit. I'm going to check and see who the Gita Press people interpreted it.

I checked the Gita Press translation as well as the All-India Tradition and Mythology series translation by J.L. Shastri. It looks like both of them interpret this verse as referring to sacrifices done to Bhairava and/or Bhadra-Kali just as the ISKCON one does. Possibly something in the context, i.e. the part about women taking the sacrificed flesh, in addition to possibly some sort of long-forgotten cult practice from history, led them to interpret this way.

[sayak83]

Given that the only Vaishnava poster on this thread agrees that animals were literally sacrificed,I fail to see any reason for your attack on Vaishnavas
Apologize profusely. I had seen some fairly unconvincing Vaisnava tracks soemwhere before trying to metaphorize everything related to meat eating. That was the context, of course many Vaisnavs don't and I have absolutely nothing against Vaisnavism at all...admire Krisna and Chaitanya a lot.

[sayak83]

If the translator is Griffith & associates,you can rubbish the translations
Here is a post from HDF on animal violence http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=87075&postcount=1

That is a very general post, please provide actual translations of these passages from what you consider a more correct reading.

[Omkara]

The translator is K.M.Ganguli,and the translation is accurate as it is supported by P.Lal's translation and he is the best Mahabharata translator.

However,it has been demonstrated on the thread given below that ritual eating of sacrificed animals does not equal non vegetarianism.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=9750

I have seen a few passages in both the P.Lal and Ganguli translations implying that kshatriyas were allowed to eat meat and P.Lal says as much in an interview I read,but I have not been able to study these passages closely enough to comment.It would be difficult to explain all the stories about hunting in the itihasas and puranas otherwise though.

[dhyandev]

If you are looking for accurate translations of the vedas,I would recommend Aurobindo Ghosh,Kapali Shastry,Shriram Sharma,Raimon Panikkar,David Frawley and A.C.Bose.
& jayadev sharma

[dhyandev]

If I recall correctly that is fro the K.M.Ganguli translation.

Dhyandev,Arya Samaj translations of the vedas are worse than the orientalist translations.

Why are u anti arya samaj(implies anti swami dayanand) can you explain .& who are the orientalist ?You must be having solid reasons behind your standing

[Omkara]

Have you read the translations of the arya samaj and the people I named above?If you had done so, the answer would have been obvious to you.By orientalist,I mean Griffith & gang.

According to Arya Samaj translations,the 12 Adityas are the 12 months of the year,Indra is electromagnetic force,Mitra-Varuna are hydrogen and oxygen,Brahma,Agni and Vayu are the names of human sages.....Enough said :D

Are these reasons solid enough,or do you want me to go ahead and rip apart the entire translation? :rolleyes:

[Sahasranama]

I have not mingled in this discussion on purpose, but I wonder if the people accusing griffith & co for everything that is morally outside of their comfort zone have taken the time to go through the document I posted that clearly shows that certain ritual proceedings were not fabricated by Orientalists, but have been part of the native vedic tradition.

I will not comment on this subject, since the last time I did I was banned. But I will offer the relevant scanned pages from the Shukla Yajurveda that deal with this subject. I have scanned these pages and uploaded them on scribd.com. I request everyone not to engage me in discussion about this material. This is just to inform you. The text is in Sanskrit with the commentaries of Mahidhara and Uvata and there are Hindi translations of each mantra.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100685781/Img

Don't shoot the messenger.

[Omkara]

I agree.Griffith's translation is bad only insofar as it is superficial and does not take into account the elaborate symbolism of the vedas and makes unwarranted racist interpretations in some places.

[Omkara]

Btw,does anybody know what were Madhavacharya's arguments for saying there is no animal sacrifice in the vedas?

[Omkara]

[Sukta 162 in fact deals with the science of applying horse power
(automation) of the fire pervading in the form of energy.


We shall describe here the energy generating virtues of the powerful
horses (planets), added with brilliant properties of the vigorous
force of heat. The learned never dispute these properties.


Sw. Dayanand Saraswati in his book "An Introduction to the Vedas"
has adversely criticised on the commentaries of Sayan and Mahidhar in
context of some of their interpretations of the Vedic hymns. They
could be held responsible for the horrible and horrid interpretations
which suggest as if the Vedas were the texts to lay down the modes of
sacrifices. Is it not a tragedy for the Dharmacharyas/Sanskrit
scholars of this country that they also could not pursue the path
shown by Dayanand and got bogged down only in the rituals of worship
in the temples and no attention was paid to the sources of knowledge
which were the guiding principles of Aryans, our worthy ancestors and
sons of the mother India (Aryavrat) as the Vedas proclaimed man as
'amritasya putras' and we need to follow this path if we want to be
proud of our heritage and hold our head high or otherwise we are going
to be labelled with the legacy of butchers and animal killers who
desired to please different gods by various sacrifices performed in
the yajnas.


Mantras 13 to 19 deal with the theme of horse or automation power


This Sukta deals with various attributes of learned person, Agni,
science & technology. There are references to the horse to illustrate
its unique qualities of its immense energy likened to Agni (fire),
intelligence, bravery and inbuilt attributes which are at par with
those of the men of wisdom. Perusal of some mantras will bring home
this point.




A few extracts from dhyandev's own post which show the absurdity of Arya Samaj translations.

[dhyandev]

Have you read the translations of the arya samaj and the people I named above?If you had done so, the answer would have been obvious to you.By orientalist,I mean Griffith & gang.

According to Arya Samaj translations,the 12 Adityas are the 12 months of the year,Indra is electromagnetic force,Mitra-Varuna are hydrogen and oxygen,Brahma,Agni and Vayu are the names of human sages.....Enough said :D

Are these reasons solid enough,or do you want me to go ahead and rip apart the entire translation? :rolleyes:

read this to understand swami dayanand better http://www.vjsingh.info/book2.html

I have read jayadev sharma's .

If the above written things donot approve of your view point,is that absurd ?
Are there any hard & fast rules to interpret the vedas(that there is no science in it.It is all coded up)?
It is better to remain ignorant of Vedas than to gain knowledge about Vedas from Ralph Griffith's translations.
jaki rahi bhavana jaisi ,prabhu murat dekhi tin taisi

[philosoraptor]

I'm certianly not one to endorse a mleccha translation, but didn't Ralph Griffith base his translation on Sayana's commentary? Or am I thinking of someone else?

[Arjuni]

Namasté,

I'm certianly not one to endorse a mleccha translation, but didn't Ralph Griffith base his translation on Sayana's commentary? Or am I thinking of someone else?

You're thinking of Max Müller.

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

[Omkara]

Ah,our resident expert on the vedas is here.Indraneela,do you know more about the purushamedha?

Philosoraptor,perhaps you skipped the posts where dhyandev revealed he beleives the arya samaj theory that in the vedas the 12 Adityas are the 12 months of the year,Indra is electromagnetic force,Mitra-Varuna are hydrogen and oxygen,Brahma,Agni and Vayu are the names of human sages etc,and that the vedas are actually scientific treatises which contain information on how to build batteries,power engines,aeroplanes etc.He would probably condemn any translation you offer him.

[Arjuni]

Namasté,

I will need to seriously re-think the tone and implications of my postings if I have ever implied being "expert on the Vedas." Please do not mistake me for such; I love and respect the Vedic knowledge, but I cannot read Sanskrit, and would leave the learned arguments to the forum members with far more ability and experience than I. I am only a devotee, not a scholar, and have deliberately avoided posting in this thread for that reason - though I am reading with keen interest!

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

[Omkara]

By those standards,I should not be posting at all!
I was fortunate enough to have Sanskrit as a subject in school,but I know only the basics-certainly not enough to read directly from a text like the vedas.Philosoraptor seems to know a fair bit though.

In any case,I stand by my assesment.

[Omkara]

It appears that the story is also present in the Aitreya Brahmana.This is getting murkier.I think this is now beyond our abilities to resolve.The Brahmanas are seeming to say different things.

[philosoraptor]

Namasté,

I'm certianly not one to endorse a mleccha translation, but didn't Ralph Griffith base his translation on Sayana's commentary? Or am I thinking of someone else?

You're thinking of Max Müller.


Ahh, thanks. These mlecchas all look alike to me. :-)

Just FYI for the interested parties, Madhvacharya's Rig Veda commentary (it's actually his commentary on the first 40 suktas) is available for purchase from the Exotic India website. I imagine this would be the place to look for his views and rationale regarding animal sacrifices.

I have the book but am currently absorbed in Ramayana for now. Perhaps later, maybe next year, I will try to tackle it.

regards,

[Omkara]

Can you provide me a link?

Madhavacharya's interpretation of the vedas is unique in the history of indian philosophy.He rejects the traditional karma-jnana kanda division.

He so rejects that the samahitas,brahmanas and aranyakas are apara vidya and the upanishads are para vidya.He says hat the entire vedas are both para and apara vidya.The same text,if the names like Indra etc. is taken to be referring to the deva of that name as apara vidya and if the name is taken to refer to Brahman is para vidya.

This interpretation appeals to me especially because it does not divide the shruti into superior and inferior parts.

[philosoraptor]

Can you provide me a link?

Madhavacharya's interpretation of the vedas is unique in the history of indian philosophy.He rejects the traditional karma-jnana kanda division.

He so rejects that the samahitas,brahmanas and aranyakas are apara vidya and the upanishads are para vidya.He says hat the entire vedas are both para and apara vidya.The same text,if the names like Indra etc. is taken to be referring to the deva of that name as apara vidya and if the name is taken to refer to Brahman is para vidya.

This interpretation appeals to me especially because it does not divide the shruti into superior and inferior parts.

The link is here: http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/sri-anandatirtha-bhagavadpadacarya-viracitam-rg-bhasyam-sri-madhvacarya-s-commentary-on-first-forty-suktams-of-rg-veda-sanskrit-text-transliteration-and-english-translation-NAB904/

This is one of the true jewels in my book collection and I am looking forward to tasting it, maybe in the next few months.

Just FYI, Ramanuja's take on the Vedas appears to be similar to Madhva's, judging by what he and his followers write. He does interpret (rightfully so) references to a supreme deity via anya-devata names as references to Brahman and not the anya-devata, using the logic either that (1) He is the inner controller of that devata or (2) He has the qualities for which that devata is named, albeit in fuller measure. This is a very logical and consistent principle of interpretation and actually feels more in line with what the texts are trying to tell us.

I don't recall Ramanuja mentioning "para" and "apara" vidyas in his commentaries. Everything I have read to date indicates that he considers all of shruti authoritative. He does (unlike, I believe, Madhva) accept that there is a karma-kANDa division, but he says that the jnaani need not dispense with it at all. On the contrary, the jnaani should perform the rituals, but without desire for their fruits (i.e. by surrendering them to bhagavAn).

regards,

[Omkara]

Then how does Ramanuja interpret thr upanishadic references to para and apara vidya?I had read that ither than madhwa all vedanta commentators except madhwa take ethis to refer to jnana and karma kanda respectively.

[philosoraptor]

Then how does Ramanuja interpret thr upanishadic references to para and apara vidya?I had read that ither than madhwa all vedanta commentators except madhwa take ethis to refer to jnana and karma kanda respectively.

I don't remember off hand, but I'm pretty sure he does not interpret in such a way as to indicate that one is more authoritative than the other.
For Ramanuja, the karma-kANDa is not to be dismissed. True that it promises fruits to induce the materialistic to take to the path of sacrifice, but for the jnaani, those same sacrifices are perfomed in a spirit of "sAttvika-tyAga" in which the fruits are dedicated to NArAyana Himself. Not only sacrifices, but everything right down to doing ArAdhana and sandhya-vandana is performed in that very spirit by followers of RAmAnuja.

In Ishopanishad 11, the subject of knowing vidyA and avidyA together is spoken of as necessary. Here, the Sri Vaishnava commentator Sri Ranga Ramanuja Muni takes the former to mean upAsana and the latter to be karma. If you have another specific reference, I would be happy to look it up.

[Omkara]

I read it on a dvaita website, so it is probably just polemic against srivaishnavas.

Thge difference between Ramanuja's interpretation and madhva's is that Madhva holds that each verse has two meanings,the para and apara vidyas.The apara meaning sets out the ontology of creation,and the para meaning describes brahman.

Taken in para meaning, the veda is about the battle betwwen vishnu and vritra(Vritra means the Coverer or the enveloper, so in the para sense it is taken by madhva to refer to ignorance which obscures the devotee's knowledge of God).

Sorry to go off on a tangent(This thread keeps going off on tangents, but who cares?I am enjoying it!)
Since you mentioned Isopanishad,here is Madhvacharya's interpretation of verses 9-18-

Those who worship [Visnu or others] with false understanding enter dense, unrelenting darkness;a greater darkness than that go they, who are merely devoted to the correct understanding(but do not care to criticize incorrect understanding).
We heard from the wise and judicious, who explained to us that the result of having the right knowledge is different from the result of condemning the wrong knowledge.
One who knows the correct knowledge, and also criticizes false knowledge, for him, by criticism of false knowledge (which causes suffering), he overcomes suffering, and by practice of correct knowledge (which causes enjoyment), he obtains mukti.
Those who worship [Visnu] with the understanding that He is not the Creator, enter dense,unrelenting darkness; to a greater darkness than that go they, who merely think of Him as the Creator alone [but not as the Sustainer or Destroyer].
We have heard from the wise, who explained to us that the result of having knowledge of Him as Creator is different from the result of knowing Him as the Destroyer.
One who knows Visnu as Creator, and also as the Destroyer, for him, by knowledge of Him as Destroyer, he overcomes suffering, and by knowing Him as Creator, he obtains mukti.
The effulgent form of the Lord, who is present (even) in the solar orb and is of complete auspicious qualities, is concealed from my vision; O Complete One, I pray to thee that thou mayest disclose thine form (which I otherwise would never be able to see) to me, thy devotee.
O Pusan the Omniscient, Ekarsi the Supreme Knowable, Yama the ontroller of all, Surya the effulgent and a destination for even the deities, Prajapatya a special destination for Brahma;extend the knowledge that is of my true nature, and also knowledge extrinsic to me, so that I may perceive that most auspicious form of yours.
That Perfect Being, who exists in all symbols including Mukhya Prana, the god of Life, and who cannot be avoided (by anyone ever), is the very essence of being (for myself and for everyone else).
Although this body is subject to destruction by fire (or similarly), even so, (even) the deity of Life whose support is Brahman alone, does not himself suffer destruction at any time.
O Hari, who art of the form of knowledge, be thou of a disposition to bless me, thy devotee;note thou any good things I may have done (and have compassion for things I have done wrong), and show favor upon me. O Hari, who art of the form of knowledge, be thou of a disposition to bless me, thy devotee; note thou any good things I may have done (and have
compassion for things I have done wrong), and show favor upon me.
O Lord, as ‘Agni’, you are verily the controller of the body, and even of the whole universe;lead us by the highest path to the wealth of liberation; you fully know all that we know, all the efforts we have made; remove from us the effects of past sinful acts that are causing bondage, thus we pray unto you with our fullest knowledge and devotion.


Madhva's interpretation is so radically different from others that you wonder if you are reading a different text.That is why i am very interested in reading his commentaries as they give a completely different perspective from others.

[philosoraptor]

I have observed that Dvaita polemics against other traditions don't always represent the other tradition accurately before criticizing. I suppose that's probably true everywhere. Madhva's Upanishad commentaries are also available on the Exotic India website if you are interested in them. I have several of them but they aren't on my reading short list as of yet.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Madhva's interpretation is so radically different from others that you wonder if you are reading a different text.That is why i am very interested in reading his commentaries as they give a completely different perspective from others.

Madhva has not been taken seriously by academia for this reason. Among other things -

1. His grammar is questionable and Sharma describes it as his intention to give his writings a "deliberate archaic touch". I read that as "to make it look older than it is".

2. He interprets Brahman in the Gita as Laxmi.

3. He read tattvamasi as atattvamasi

4. He read aham brahmasmi as aheyam brahmasmi

Sharma writes that Madhva's work would have long been forgotten if it were not for the efforts of other scholars who came later in his line, such as Jayathirta, et al.

[Omkara]

I am aware of this.Perhaps more jarring and bewildering is his hierarchy of vayu>brahma>shiva.I don't think such a stance has even an iota of scriptural support.

[philosoraptor]

I am aware of this.Perhaps more jarring and bewildering is his hierarchy of vayu>brahma>shiva.I don't think such a stance has even an iota of scriptural support.

Check out Madhva's commentary on the bRhadAraNyakopaniShad. He interprets those mantras describing the primacy of prANa as referring to mukhya-prANa aka vAyu, while other commentators interpret it to refer to brahman who ensouls prANa. Frankly, Madhva's view has the advantage of being more literal here, but such elevation of vAyu is not mentioned elsewhere so far as I have seen.

Also Shiva, just to be fair, the Sanskrit in CU is "sAtmAtattvamasi" which can be grammatically parsed as either "sa AtmA atat tvam asi" (as Madhva does) or "sa AtmA tat tvam asi" (as most others do). I don't think this is reason for ridicule.

regards,

[Omkara]

Yes,but the story of uma haimavati in the kena upanishad makes it clear that vayu is inferior to indra and that indra>vayu>agni>all other devas.It says so explicitly.So placing vayu over Indra,let alone Brahma and Shiva is unwarranted.The upanishad says Indra excelled all the other devas as he came closest to brahman.No amount of grammatical tricks can do anything to midify that statement.

And all scriptures are in my opinion unanimous in declaring Shiva as superior to Brahma.There is not one line in any scripture of any sect that could possibly be interpreted otherwise.On the contrary,Shiva's superiority to Brahma is demonstrated again and again even in those Puranas which say Shiva is Brahma's son.Examples-universally accepted stories such as shiva tearing off brahma's fifth head,daksha yajna etc.

[Omkara]

The Brahma Sutras also support the interpretation that the prana referred to is brahman.

[philosoraptor]

Yes,but the story of uma haimavati in the kena upanishad makes it clear that vayu is inferior to indra and that indra>vayu>agni>all other devas.It says so explicitly.So placing vayu over Indra,let alone Brahma and Shiva is unwarranted.The upanishad says Indra excelled all the other devas as he came closest to brahman.No amount of grammatical tricks can do anything to midify that statement.

Agreed, that (among other reasons) is why I tend to think prANa means brahman in the BU.



And all scriptures are in my opinion unanimous in declaring Shiva as superior to Brahma.There is not one line in any scripture of any sect that could possibly be interpreted otherwise.On the contrary,Shiva's superiority to Brahma is demonstrated again and again even in those Puranas which say Shiva is Brahma's son.Examples-universally accepted stories such as shiva tearing off brahma's fifth head,daksha yajna etc.

The relationship of Shiva and Brahma seems inconsistent at times. In many Puranas he is described as Brahma's mind-born son. Yet, often in the very same Puranas, Brahma pays him obeisances. I tend to think that Shiva is only subordinate to Brahma in a formal sense (i.e. son to father) but in another sense is a higher entity (which would explain why, after Vishnu, Shiva seems to get the most praise). There is also the Bhagavatam verse stating that the Bhagavatam is to other Puranas what Ganga is to other rivers and what Shiva is to other Vaishnavas. I tend to think then that Shiva is higher up on a hierarchy than Brahma.

[Omkara]

Re your last point,this is a mistake Vaishnavas very commonly make,to regard the puranas as largely pro vaishnava or to think that shaivas reject the puranas because there is not enough support in them for our virws.In all,10 of the 18 major puranas are shaiva ot shaiva leaning(11 if you count tge devi bhagavatam-all shakta texts can be given a shaivite interpretation and vice versa).If you add up the verse numbers,shaivite texts make up close to three fourths of puranic literature.(Anticipating an explanation that certain puranas are tamasic or rajasic :D )

Something which might interest you:In the Devi Bhagavatam,Krishna is an avatar of devi and Radha is an avatar of Shiva. ;)

[philosoraptor]

Re your last point,this is a mistake Vaishnavas very commonly make,to regard the puranas as largely pro vaishnava or to think that shaivas reject the puranas because there is not enough support in them for our virws.In all,10 of the 18 major puranas are shaiva ot shaiva leaning(11 if you count tge devi bhagavatam-all shakta texts can be given a shaivite interpretation and vice versa).If you add up the verse numbers,shaivite texts make up close to three fourths of puranic literature.(Anticipating an explanation that certain puranas are tamasic or rajasic :D )

Something which might interest you:In the Devi Bhagavatam,Krishna is an avatar of devi and Radha is an avatar of Shiva. ;)

My last point was about the inconsistency of the treatment of Shiva vis-a-vis Brahma in the Puranas. I didn't say anything about Shaivas at all, what to speak of Shaivas rejecting the Puranas. I described my conclusions based on my personal readings, and not on any Vaishnava doctrine specifically. I'm not sure why you felt the need to start a Shaivism vs Vaishnavism tangent.

As far as my personal views, I have stated in the past, and continue to believe, that the validity of the Puranas is dependent on their being consistent with shruti. In that regard, I think I am in good company as most Vaishnava Vedantins with whom I am familiar as well as Advaitins uphold the same view.

regards,

[Omkara]

Perhaps I misread your post.Sorry.What I said was in response to your statement that shiva gets the most praise after vishnu.I pointed out that taking the puranic canon as a whole,the reverse is true.If you meant to say aomething else,I am sorry.

I do agree the validity of puranic material is dependent on their being consistent with shruti.

I will be posting some good material by swami krishnananda on the symbolism od the ashwamedha.

[philosoraptor]

Something which might interest you:In the Devi Bhagavatam,Krishna is an avatar of devi and Radha is an avatar of Shiva. ;)

And just FYI, that statement, if true, is inconsistent with other statements from the same source which explain that Devi is superior to Shiva who is superior to Krishna who is superior Brahma (quoted by me previously on the deva hierarchy thread). Obviously, if the Purana contradicts itself on this issue, one has to look elsewhere for the truth. Unless of course, you subscribe to Ganesh Prasad's "simultaneous, inconceivable, mutually-contradictory-yet-true" theory of pramaanas...

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Omkara

These are amazing revelations you share here, thank you!
Just yesterday I encountered a Vaishnav point of view calling a Purana tamastic. So much knowledge is there to learn and for me there isn't time to waste attacking instead of focusing on learning. Thanks for sharing, I really learn a lot from you!

Om Namah Sivaya

[Omkara]

The Devi Bhagavata Purana also contains several Gaudiya chapters at the end which say that Krishna is supreme.

I will be posting some good material related to the original topic soon.

I have gone through the thread again and failed to see anything that was not in response to your statement that shiva gets the most praise after Vishnu.I merely pointed out this was not the case,and provided proof.If you can point out what you found objectionable and why,I will delete it. :(

[Omkara]

I will also post passages from the Aitreya Brahmana which I think might imply literal human sacrifice.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

Actually, exactly what is the controversy here? Maybe the perspective of a "Westerner" regarding Ashwamedh sacrifice could be a way of getting to what appears to be some issue? I know some consider me a mleecha, but that's too bad for them, not for me.

No, I do not "read Sanskrit" though I wasn't that bad at it back in the 1970s and early 80s. I've started revisiting the Rik Veda, and using some of the book recommendations of members of this Forum (thanks!).... Actually, the Rik is beautiful but still strikes me as being centric to rituals to Agni, though I like some of the references to Rudra. But it is obvious that rituals are the focus, and of notable performance. Which is fine, but how many "Brahmans" are actually performing, in literal and exacting methods, these same rituals and where is the Soma?

From a "layman" view, hearing of sacrifices, sitting at some with the fire and all - but never seeing a horse being sacrificed or chopped up and such - it doesn't bother me that they were obviously performed, and reading accounts of horse sacrifices in the Ramayana, Puranas etc, do not shock my sensibilities but perhaps some would account that to Western insensibilities (even though I don't know how many Indians and Hindus have told me that I am "more Indian than Indians" (?) ... My layman understanding is, this sacrifice was only to be performed by, sponsored by KINGS, e.g. I guess that includes Maharajas, Rajas, and so on.

In fact, I guess the "Western word for it" would be ROYALS. Like Prince Charles :) ... And company...

And it appears as if saying Kshatriya isn't the right word for who can sponsor it, it pretty much looks like this was the sacrifice sponsored by Kshatriya Rajas and Princes and not "foot soldiers" if you will. I know someone will quote an exception to this, but isn't that pretty much the truth to the matter? That horse sacrifices were the province of Kings?

And if so .... then how any Rajas do we have today? There are some --- I met one once. But how many with real Royal Power in India for example? Basically, there are none. in one way, it s sort of sad... At least, for me since I like some Maharajas and Rajas, very much.

In Europe, there are still some Kings (and Queens) with REAL POWER. Though waining. However, they do not perform horse sacrifices as far as I know but it wouldn't surprise me if some would LIKE to! I think I read in the initial Wiki link of this thread a reference to Gaulish words that seem obviously to be the same as ashwamed (I have also heard it could be related to the Arya "ashamed" as in red faced or embarrassed and seeking revenge for being put in the position of being "red faced") ... I think Gaulish is sort of French, and actually my understanding is the British Crown is actually Norman (e.g. French) and not Anglo English in "race".

Whatever the case, the point being, who is actually around to perform horse sacrifices these days anyway? It seems there are no such Kings, Rajas, Maharajas to speak of in any position or authority to sponsor a horse sacrifice.

They are all gone! What happened?

So whatever happened in the past, well it probably isn't something that is going to happen in the future any time soon so I am not going to take a thumbs up or down on it. Who cares? I mean, until I see a Lord Ram come back and be my King, why fuss?

Anyway, the horse sacrifice isn't the be all to end all anyway. I am reading the Linga Purana, and it says the Gift of The Golden Horse is More Excellent than The Horse Sacifice. You take either 1008 gold coins, or 108 gold coins (the choice is yours) and melt them down and make a Gold Horse Murthi, put five auspicious marks on it, and worship it, this is MORE excellent than sacrificing a real horse.

And after this Golden Horse worship is done, this golden horse should be "given to a devotee of Shiva" (that is after giving 5 gold coins to a Brahmin).

Linga Purana 39,1-9.

Since this is better than the horse sacrifice, it appears anyone can do it, even today in the modern times. And if anyone does, I am a devotee of Shiva, if you like you can give me the golden horse!

Om Namah Sivaya

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I just noticed something. According to scientific journals and study, the DNA evidence of horses is pretty much conclusive that all domesticated horses of today came from Southern Russia and specifically Ukraine, Caucasas Mountains and Kazakhstan e.g areas between the Black Sea and the Caspian sea, from about 4000 BC. I know some may argue that there were wild horses prior, and the DNA marker is of horses possessed by humans, but doesn't this argue that no sacred text that mentions horse sacrifice could not be any older than 4000 BC?

Om Namah Sivaya

[philosoraptor]

I have gone through the thread again and failed to see anything that was not in response to your statement that shiva gets the most praise after Vishnu.I merely pointed out this was not the case,and provided proof.If you can point out what you found objectionable and why,I will delete it. :(

Pranams. I'm not sure what is meant by the above. All I said is that the treatment of Shiva and Brahma seems inconsistent in the Puranas I have read, with Shiva being revered by Brahma and yet being said to be the son of Brahma. Between the two, though, I'm more inclined to believe that Shiva is higher up on the hierarchy based on the kinds of statements made about him, next to Vishnu, who (in the sources I have read to date) is glorified more often as a supreme deity than is Shiva. True that I've not read every Purana in existence (as I am sure you have not either), so I can't say for certain what a total tally would show. Have you read every Purana and made a total count of Vaishnava (Vishnu is supreme) vs Shaiva (Shiva is supreme) statements? If you have, and you presented such a count (which would constitute proof), then I must have missed it. Otherwise, I didn't see anything from you constituting "proof." I could have of course present you with the counts I have kept, but my readings of the Puranas are far from complete, and besides, I consider it less significant as authority than I do consistency with shruti, which seems more amenable to a Vaishnava interpretation than to a Shaiva one (again, according to my limited readings). If you wish to turn this into a discussion of the merits of each interpretation, perhaps you can start a new thread and we can discuss it there.

Shivafan, you are correct in noting that the absence of a royal dynasty makes the performance of elaborate yagnas like ashvamedha impractical these days. However, I think it is still important to understand what it was, since (like it or not) we are one culture among many cultures, and there is tendency of people of other cultures to misjudge our culture and its practices. This has historically lead to people born into our culture becoming apostates (google "Why I am no longer a Hindu" for one such example). Like varnaashrama, the nature of ashvamedha-yagna as well as purushamedha-yagna represents a point of attack for atheistic critics as well as proselytizing missionaries. We can't fix critics but we can counter their misrepresentations with correct understanding so that people will not be mislead.

regards,

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

Apparently contributions to horse DNA study recognize the work of Prof DN Rank of India. I also noticed some interesting research of BeverLey Davis of the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations UOP, who outlines:

.......

1500 BC

The Mittani arrive in the Middle East and ally with Egypt; Wassukkani is their capital. The famous black horses of Nefertiti were probably Mittani.
Horses are introduced into northern India at this time, the beginning of the Vedic Era. Mittani and Indian horses belong to the same family.
Sometime between 1500 and 1450, King Shaushshatar of the Mittani loots the Assyrian city of Ashur, teaching its citizens the importance of the horse.

145–125 BC

Tocharians and Scythians (the Yüeh-chih [Yuezhi]) flee China ahead of marauding Huns. Their conquest of Bactria, still very Greek from the days of Alexander, leads to the founding of the Kushan Empire. The horses of the Tocharians form the rootstock of the Marwari, Kathiawari, and other related “Indian” horses.

389–395 AD (common era)

Chandragupta II Vikramaditya begins his wars against the Kushanas. The Tocharian horse, a brave, handsome horse of ancient Celtic breeding, is incorporated into the Indian horse family.

.......

Of course I am not saying I necessarily trust this information 100 percent, but it is interesting.

Could sacred texts and literature that note the horse sacrifice, which is obviously much older and their more ancient roots can also be proven as deep into the hoary past, could such ageless words and writing have been subject in later interjections by others to include horse sacrifice?

Whatever the case, I did notice one sad item - apparently the Kathiawari horse of India is under threat of extinction! So if anyone is thinking of reintroducing horse sacrifices, please do not sacrifice this beautiful horse. It is stunning in beauty and grace. Alexander the Great had a similar horse in description.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Omkara]

I only said that given the preponderence of shaivite works among the puranas,with pro-shaiva works making up a majority of puranic literature in terms of number of verses (the number of verses per purana is available in the public domain,so you can check my calculation if you like),it would be logical to suppose shiva is the most praised deity in the puranas.Admittedly,I have not read all the puranas or personally counted,so perhaps it was wrong of me to make a categorical statement to that effect.However,you too made a categorical statement that Vishnu is the most praised deity in the puranas befire qualifying your statement in your next post.Certainly I did not advance it as an argument for Shiva's supremacy.I only said that in response to your statement that Vishnu is the mist praised deity in the Puranas.

A better way of saying what I wanted to say is that my studies indicated that Shiva is considered the supreme being in more places in the puranas,in response to your stayement that Vishnu is.

That obviously does not necessarily mean shiva is supreme and such statements must obviously be disregarded if they contradict shruti.
I was merely pointing out that your statement that vishnu is the most praised deity in the puranas is not correct.

I not see any need to continue this and bicker over which puranas are pro-shaiva or vaishnava.Some could possibly count as either,like Naradeya and Kurma.This is not helping either of us.I suggest we bury this topic and go back to the productive discussion we were having.I apologize for bringing this up unnecessarily.

As and when I get the time to post from a computer,I will post new data that we can examine further.I have come to the conclusion that the sunashepa story is not an interpolation as the Aitreya Brahmana mentions it too.

Also,I have come across articles that say that several sacrifices switched back and forth between interpretations in various eras.Eg.aja-medha.
Maybe we can also discuss what seem to be mentions of cow-sacrifice in certain texts(go-medha)

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


---- Obviously, if the Purana contradicts itself on this issue, one has to look elsewhere for the truth. Unless of course, you subscribe to Ganesh Prasad's "simultaneous, inconceivable, mutually-contradictory-yet-true" theory of pramaanas...

Why drag me here? are you afraid, by having a savite as an ally on current discussion on vedas you might end up actually respecting their position on Lord Shiva as supreme. No i didn't think you would, is that why you have to accentuate this hierarchy position?

It seems you are also saying Shree Vyasdev who is author of all these purans contradicted himself, as if also to say, he did not know sruti. let me remind you what you said about puran in another thread.


All of these statements have to be accepted if we consider scripture the means by which He is to be known.-----
Also just FYI, I think the real point here is accepting shAstra as it is,------ - perhaps we should concern ourselves with Sri Vedavyaasa's opinion, since it is his literature we are trying to understanding. Just sayin'….

Jai Shree Krishna

[Omkara]

Why do I get the feeling this thread is soon going to turn into a brawl?

[Omkara]

The below passages are from Swami Krishnananda's Commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

THE UNIVERSE AS A SACRIFICIAL HORSE
The commencement of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣhad is a
description of a symbolic placement of the parts of the
individual in the cosmic quarters, with the spiritual intention
of an undivided meditation, where the subject commingles
with the object. The peculiar technique, adopted here in this
Upaniṣhad, is ritualistic as it is characteristic of the
Brāhmaṇas in the Vedas, and this technique is supposed to
be adopted in the case of every individual character in its
correlation with the universe. Here the individual concerned
is the horse of the Aśvamedha Sacrifice, which is the object of
consecration and while, exoterically considered, it is one of
the items in the Aśvamedha Yajña, and it becomes a part of
an external act, in the Upaniṣhad it becomes a piece of
contemplation, which is the avowed purpose of the
Upaniṣhad—to convert every act into a mode of
contemplation, to transform every object into the Universal
Subject. This is the aim of the Upaniṣhad finally; and for this
purpose various methods are prescribed. One method is,
here, in this Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣhad, at its beginning, the
transformation of the ritual technique into an inward
contemplation of the Spirit.
1. aum! uṣā vā aśvasya medhyasya śiraḥ, sῡryas cakṣuḥ, vātaḥ
prāṇaḥ, vyāttam agnir vaisvānaraḥ; saṁvatsara ātmāśvasya
medhyasya, dyauḥ pṙṣṭham, antarikṣam udaram, pṛthivī
pājasyam, diśaḥ pārśve, avāntaradiśaḥ pārśavaḥ,
ṛtavóṅgāni, māsās cārdhamāsāś ca parvāṇi, ahorātrāṇi
pratiṣṭhāḥ, nakṣatrāny asthīni, nabho māṁsāni; ῡvadhyaṁ
sikatāḥ, sindhavo gudāḥ, yakṛc ca klomānaś ca parvatāḥ,
oṣadhayaś ca vanaspatayaś ca lomāni, udyan pῡrvārdhaḥ
nimlocañ jaghanārdhaḥ, yad vijṛmbhate tad vidyotate, yad
37
vidhῡnute tat stanayati, yan mehati tad varṣati; vāg evāsya
vāk.
This is the first Mantra which is written in prose, the
style of the Brāhmaṇa portion of the Vedas. Uṣā vā aśvasya
medhyasya śiraḥ: The dawn is the head of this sacred horse.
The idea is that every part of the essential item in the
sacrifice is to be identified, correspondingly, part by part,
with the sections of the universe outside. In worship,
especially that performed in temples, we have also a similar
technique adopted, which is known as the Nyāsa method—
the placement. Nyāsa means placement. The parts of the
body of the worshipper are correspondingly placed in the
parts of the body of the deity, so that the distinction between
the worshipper and the deity is abolished. The two become
one. Such a Nyāsa is done here. The head of the sacrificial
horse must be contemplated as the dawn. Here, the dawn
does not necessarily mean a particular time of the eve of the
rise of the sun at any particular place, but the eastern part,
mostly conceivable by the mind, as the world, as it can be
visualised by us to the extent possible. Now, if it is not
possible to conceive it in this manner, it can be taken literally
as the eastern part of the world where we are living. The
dawn is the head of the consecrated horse. The dawn, the
beginning of the day, is the head, because the head is the
beginning of the body. That is the similarity. The day begins
with the dawn, and the body begins with the head. This is the
similarity conceived here.
The eyes may be compared to the sun. The similarity is
very obvious, because the sun is the eye of the day through
which perception is made possible; and the eyes, of course, in
the body, are themeans of every kind of visual perception.
The Cosmic Wind, the Air that pervades, is the Prāṇa
within. We should identify the Prāṇa within the horse with
the Air that is outside, because the two are essentially the
same, one working in the world outside and another working
within the body of the individual, here, the horse.
38
The mouth is the Agnī Vaiśvānara. In some Upaniṣhads,
the Aitareya particularly, we have another cosmological
description where we are told that from the Cosmic Virāt,
Fire broke out through the mouth. And the organ of speech is
supposed to be presided over, in every case, by the principle
of Fire. So the mouth of the individual horse, here, may be
identified with the cosmic fire which is Vaiśvānara.
Vaiśvānara is a word which has two or three meanings. It is a
fire principle which is hiddenly present in all things, the
principle of fire which manifests itself as the visible fire
outside, which, again, is sometimes identified with the
Cosmic Being. Vaiśva-Nara means the Cosmic-Man, and the
derivative of this word is Vaiśvānara. The Vaiśvānara is the
Cosmic Person who represents the energy of all things,
manifested outwardly as the fire principle, energy
secondarily manifest, again, as the power of speech. And so,
the mouth is to be identified with the Vaiśvānara, the
principle of Divine Fire.
The body is the entire process of the year. The Time
process is the body, because the body has many limbs, many
parts; and likewise, time can be segmented into parts—past,
present, future; and if it is concretised further, it becomes
capable of division into years, months, days, nights, etc. The
comparison is that, as the time has divisible parts, so the
body also has divisible parts. The two are identified.
The Sky is the back, as it were. The comparison is that it
is on the top, above the body.
The Atmosphere is the belly, because it is hollow, as it
were.
The Earth is the hoofs, on which the animal is placed.
The sides are the quarters of the heavens.
The sides of the body, consisting of the bones, may be
compared to the intermediary quarters, which are between
the main quarters.
39
The seasons are the limbs of the body. Even as the
Saṁvatsara, or the year, is constituted of various seasons, the
body is constituted of various limbs.
The divisions of the year, namely the month, the halfmonth,
the bright half and the dark half of the month, etc., are
the parts of the entire physical body, just as the year may be
supposed to be placed on the parts consisting of the months,
days, etc.
The day and night are the essence of the calculation of
Time, and, therefore, the year may be supposed to be rooted
in the calculation or conception of day and night. Thus is also
the body rooted, or placed, or supported by the feet. So, the
day and night are said to be the feet of the horse.
The constellations in the sky may be compared to the
whitish bones which are spread out, as it were, in all parts of
the body.
The clouds are the flesh of the whole body.
The sand that you can see anywhere, physically, in the
world, may be compared to the half-digested food that is in a
seed condition in the stomach.
The rivers are the veins and the arteries.
The spleen and the liver are the mountains, as it were,
which are something like an elevation in the body within.
The trees and the plants and the shrubs may be
compared to the hairs of the body.
The sun, rising, is the earlier, fore part of the body.
The hind part of the body may be compared to the sun
that is about to set.
The horse’s yawning is something like the lightening.
The shaking of the members of the body is like the
thunder in the rainy season.
40
Its making water is like the rainfall.
The sound that it makes, neighing, is the principle of
speech.
This description of the Cosmos as Horse is entirely
symbolic, and highly complicated to conceive, because the
purpose of the Upaniṣhad is to bring out the psychological
element that is present in the comparison that is made
between the physical counterparts of the body of the horse,
and the body of the universe outside. The difference between
the horse conceived here, or to make a wider comparison,
the case of any individual, for the matter of that, the
distinction between the body of an individual, whether of an
animal or a human being, and the world outside, is
psychological. If it were not psychological and is really
physical, an identification would be impossible. That one
person is different from another person, is a psychological
division. It is not physical. We have had occasion to discuss
this subject earlier in some of our discourses.
I shall give you a small example of how physical division
does not exist. It is only imaginary. The bodies of people are
constituted of the five elements—earth, water, fire, air and
ether. Your body, my body and everybody’s body is
constituted of only these things, nothing else—earth, water,
fire, air, ether. If the body of one individual, ‘A’, is
substantially the same as the body of another individual, ‘B’,
because of its being formed of the same five elements, what
is the reason for the distinction or the difference that we
make between one body and another body? It is that which
exists between the two bodies. The space is the cause. But
space is a part of the very constitution of the body itself. So,
how does this become an element of distinction? That which
we regard as spatial, and, perhaps, the only reason for the
distinction that we usually make between one body and
another, is an element essentially present in the constitution
of the body itself. So to say that space is the distinctive mark
of division between one body and another is logically not
41
tenable. It is a peculiar thinking of the minds of people that
makes it impossible for them to feel the coextensive nature of
bodies, as if they are connected at the bottom, like the waters
of the ocean. Inasmuch as physical distinctions are not
tenable ultimately, the distinctions are to be regarded as
purely mental, or psychological; and therefore, a mental act
can abolish the mental distinction that has been thus created.
The entire psychology of meditation is nothing but a
setting right of errors in thought; and the details of these
methods we shall be considering as we proceed further. So,
to come to the point, this distinction between the individual
unit and the Universal Substance is to be abolished for the
purpose of the removal of the sorrow of the individual.
Meditation is the technique of the removal of sorrow in the
sense that sorrow is caused by the segregation of the
individual from the world outside. For this purpose, one
enters into the technique of meditation. Now, here, the
context being sacrifice, we are given a method which is
ritualistic in its nature, and thus the ritualistic horse of the
Aśvamedha Sacrifice becomes an object of contemplation,
literally, liturgically as an animal in the sacrifice, but
psychologically and spiritually, as an element like any other
element in creation as a whole. The subject is continued in
the next Mantra.
2. ahar vā aśvam purastān mahimā nvajāyata. tasya pῡrve
samudre yoniḥ, rātrir enam paścān mahimā nvajāyata,
tasyāpare samudre yoniḥ, etau vā aśvam mahimānāv
abhitaḥ sambabhῡvatuḥ hayo bhῡtvā devān avahat, vājī
gandharvān, arvāsurān, aśvo manuṣyān; samudra evāsya
bandhuḥ, samudro yoniḥ.
Again, this is a ritualistic peculiarity of the Brāhmaṇa,
concerned with the Aśvamedha Sacrifice. Mahimā is a term
used to designate certain sacrificial vessels, gold and silver,
placed in the performance of the sacrifice. The daytime may
42
be compared, says the Upaniṣhad, to the golden cup that is
placed in the front of the horse.
The eastern ocean, by which what is intended is the
farthest eastern limit of the conceivable world, is the base.
The world ends with the ocean. That is how we have to think,
because we cannot think more than that. What can a child
think? If you ask a baby to think of the world, it will think
only up to the ocean. Beyond that, no thought is possible. But
this is only a beginning of the method of extending the
thought to further and further limits, until we reach the limit
of the psychological horizon. The idea is that the eastern
ocean is to be regarded as the limit, the farthest possible for
the mind in contemplating the horizon of the universe. That
is the limit of the horse.
Similarly, the rear part may be compared to the night,
and the western ocean, which is the other side of conceivable
limit. Thus, the horse is enveloped, encircled by the ritualistic
elements, which means to say, in this process of
contemplation, the parts of the world are contemplated as
associated with the world which is, here, the object of
contemplation. Just as the parts in a sacrifice are associated
with the element in the sacrifice which is the horse, the parts
of the world or the universe are to be conceived as associated
with it as parts are associated with the whole.
Here is a very difficult passage whose meaning is very
obscure. But evidently what its meaning is, is this, that there
is a gradual ascent and descent of the degree in the concept
of the horse, or rather, the concept of the universe.When you
think of the universe as an object of contemplation, you think
of it in various degrees—the gross, the subtle and the causal.
And the commentators, especially Achārya Śankara, and
others, tell us that the horse mentioned here is the Prajāpati,
or the Creator of the cosmos. It is not merely the animal in
the sacrifice. That is how we have to think in meditation. So,
as there is a descent from the causal condition to the subtle
condition, and from the subtle to the gross, and from the
43
gross to the variegated forms of manifestation in this world,
so also is the horse to be contemplated in the various aspects
of its functions, and the functions are mentioned here in
respect of the ritual of the Aśvamedha Sacrifice.
When the horse becomes the vehicle of the celestials, it is
called ‘Hayo’. When it becomes the vehicle of Gandharvas,
demi-gods, above the earth, it is called ‘Vājī’, a peculiar name
ascribed to the horse. When it becomes the vehicle of the
demons, it becomes ‘Arva’. It becomes the ordinary horse,
Aśva, when it becomes the vehicle of human beings. The
substance of all these things is the ocean. Here, the great
commentator, Achārya Śankara tells us the ocean means the
Cosmic Soul. It does not mean the ocean which is water. The
Universal Soul is the basis of the world, as the horse is the
basis of the entire sacrifice. It is the substratum; and every
activity—name, form, action—is something like a wave in the
ocean. But the wave is the ocean. The wave is in the ocean, or
on the ocean, as you may think of it. Likewise, all actions,
name and form, rise and subside within the bosom of the
universal Soul, so that you may say, just as waves are the
ocean, actions are the Universal Soul. So the universe is the
ocean, or rather, the Universal Soul is the ocean. That is the
deepest and the nearest associate. The greatest friend of man
is God. That is what is intended here. And He is the support,
ultimate resort and refuge—Samudra evāsya bandhuḥ,
samudro yoniḥ.

[Omkara]

http://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/Vedas/Aitereya/The_Aitareya_Brahmanam_of_the_Rigveda__T.pdf
See pages 460-471-The Story Of Sunashepa
Also see pages 72-96

Does anybody have a link to an ebook of the Taittriya Brahmana in english translation ?It has a section on the purushamedha which I want to read.

[Omkara]

This discussion could also be of help

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2009-September/022531.html

[Omkara]

Another resource

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8oAI40hi4-oC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=Purusha+medha&source=bl&ots=3BZMYGXz31&sig=6Re83ZhPwKQa1DEZNv82GaTOZ5c&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Purusha%20medha&f=false

and another
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/library/Animal_Sacrifices_Before_Deities_-_Tarachand_Devmal_Gajra_1918.pdf

[Omkara]

Both the above links make me think be might be misinterpreting the story of sunashepa.

[Omkara]

I will not comment on this subject, since the last time I did I was banned. But I will offer the relevant scanned pages from the Shukla Yajurveda that deal with this subject. I have scanned these pages and uploaded them on scribd.com. I request everyone not to engage me in discussion about this material. This is just to inform you. The text is in Sanskrit with the commentaries of Mahidhara and Uvata and there are Hindi translations of each mantra.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100685781/Img

Don't shoot the messenger.

How can I get the complete book in print and how much would it cost?


Philosoraptor,is this you?
http://m.quickmeme.com/Philosoraptor/

[McKitty]

Philosoraptor,is this you?
http://m.quickmeme.com/Philosoraptor/

Vanakkam,

Ah finally ! I though I was the only one knowing this meme ! :D

Aum Namah Shivaya

[Sahasranama]

How can I get the complete book in print and how much would it cost?

I got it from a bookstore in The Hague Netherlands a long time ago. I did pay a lot of money for it, the shopkeeper tricked me in paying too much for it telling me it is a rare book. It is published by the chaukhamba vidya bhavan, so you could contact them.

[dhyandev]

jaydev sharma rips purushmedha,hindi only.I will translate on request
http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/2g14utos741rmb26/images/15-f6cfd33957.jpghttp://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/2g14utos741rmb26/images/16-965e1f4dc7.jpg

[dhyandev]

The Veda teaches that life is sacred, that animals must be protected for they are beneficial to mankind. But then why have animals been decapitated for religious rites hitherto? How is it that several learned men both of the east and the west have asserted that animal sacrifices are sanctioned by the Veda? Before this difficulty can be solved, it is necessary that the true meaning of the Vedic word for sacrifice should be understood. This word is ’Yajna.’ It is a word which is very important in Sanskrit literature. It is this word with which the life history of a Hindu opens and closes. The great grammarian Panini says that ’Yajna is the performance of a Deva Puja, Samgati and Dan. The word Samgati signifies association, or concentration and focusing of powers (of the body and mind).Puja stands for worship and legitimate use. Dan means charity or self-sacrifice, giving away or expending. Thus the word Yajna comes to mean the legitimate use of Deva by means of corporate or combined action (or concentration of bodily or mental powers), expenditure of wealth or powers.To get at the full significance of our Yajna we should note the meaning of Deva. The word is derived from Diva which has the following meanings:

(1) Krida.. Play and Diversion.

(2) Vijigisha.. Desire for Victory.

(3) Vyavahar.. Social Relations.

(4)Dyuti.. Sight.

(5)Stuti.. Praise.

(6)Moda.. Happiness.

(7)Mada.. Self-Consciousness.

(8)Swapana.. Negation of motion.

(9)Kanti.. Glory.

(10)Gatishu.. Knowledge, motion, and attainment.

Thus Yajna may be defined as “the association of men and concentration of powers for social happiness, conquest over nature or enemy (of one’s county or humanity); promotion of the well-being of society; the propagation and dissemination of enlightened principles; the maintenance of national self-respect; the increase of national glory; and the cultivation of acts of peace and war.” It may also be added that Yajna also means such concentrated effort as secures man spiritual advancement and salvation. That the word Yajna was used in the above sense by the Vedic Aryas may be established by referring to certain well-known practices of the Rishis. Every man was required to perform Pancha Maha Yajna every day. These five duties are

(1)Brahma Yajna (meditation and worship of the Lord);

(2) Deva Yajna (pouring libations of clarified butter and odoriferous substances in the sacred fire and associating with the learned);

(3)Pitri Yajna (pleasing and serving parents, teachers and learned men called Agni Shvatta-yajna),

(4) Bhuta Yajna (giving food to the fallen, degraded,weak and maimed, dogs, cows, ants, etc.); and

(5)Atithi Yajna (showing hospitality to guests, especially those itinerantpreachers who go abouit teaching people to be pure and religious).

It is most significant that one of the five Yajnas commands us to do deeds of mercy and charity unto the lower creation. What can have such

Yajnas to do with spilling of blood? The Naimittika Karmas (periodical sacraments), as distinguished from the Nitya Karmas (daily duties), were also

called Yajnas. To instance Garbhadan Sanskar (the attempt to propagate our like) is known as Putreshti Yajna.Similarly Yajnopavit (sacred thread) and Viwah (marriage) are also called Yajnas. The cremation (the Antyeshti) is sometimes styled Purusha Medha Yajna.Coronation was known as

Rajasuya Yajna. At this Yajna the officiating priest exhorted the king to be good and to do good, to promote peace and prosperity of the nation, to protect the weak against strong, etc. (Shatapatha Brahmana).In the same Brahmana occurs the formula Vag vai’ Yajno (speech is Yajna) III.-I-30.In the

Upanishads man is called a Yajna or sacrifice (Chhandogya III.16) The Sapta Rishis (the seven holes in human face—eyes, ears, nostrils and mouth) are said to perform a great Yajna.The Gita (III.10, IV. 24 & V.29) also shows that the word Yajna has spiritual significance.Professor Max Muller also supports the views expressed here. (India, what can it teach us? p. 227) It may be argued that though the word Yajna is used in the above senses it may also signify animal sacrifices. This can be rebutted by referring to the Rig Veda. The Veda says that the Devas, learned and pious men, perform Adhvara Yajna.The word Adhvara means that in which no Himsa (injury of any kind) is done to any creature. (Nirukta I.33)
THE NAR MEDHA (MAN-SACRIFICE).

Some writers maintain that human sacrifices, of necessity, were prevalent in the Vedic age. They were necessary for disposal of the prisoners of war, for the immolation of wives and concubines, for the requirements of the necromancy and for propitiating the tutelary deities of the ges of those time.Now this historical argument, which has been advanced by Dr. Ranjendralal Mitra, cannot hold water. The laws of the Aryan warfare were most humane and the Aryans were chivalrous knights. They declined even to fight a man who had lost his armour or who had turned his back on them. They also promised safety and protection to the conquered everywhere (Manu VII.90-93, Ramayana I.10-11, etc.).As to burning of wives etc., it has been now clearly established that Sati nowhere exists in the Vedas. (Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s Works)

Many of our learned men deny the existence of black art in the Veda (Swami Dayanand). Even those who believe in it have not shown in any reliable authority that ceremonials connected with it were bloody.Regarding the propitiating of gods, we assert that the religion of the Vedas is monotheistic and not polytheistic or henotheistic. This we do on the authority of Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Pt. Gurudatta Vidyarthi, Sri Aurovindo Ghosha,Pt. Shiva Shankar Kavya Tirtha, Maurice Phillips, Louis Jacolliot and Prof. Ludwig.

It should also be borne in mind that even they that believe the Vedas to be polytheistic have the fairness to allow that the Vedic gods are beneficent and not malificent.Thus the so-called historical argument has been shattered to pieces. Now the passages that are quoted in support of human sacrifices may be dealt with. These are two, namely, that which occurs in the first mandal of the Rig Veda and that which is in chapters 30 and 31 of the Yajur.

STORY OF SHUNA SHEPA.

In the first passage they say that Shuna Shepa (son of Rishi Ajigarta), bound down to three pillars, prays for deliverance from that place till his bonds actually loosened and he is saved from immolation.We, on the following grounds, state that the passage in question has absolutely no reference to immolation of sacrifice:—

(i) Rishi Jaimini is our great authority on the interpretation of the Vedas. He, as well as Sayana and Yosaka, says that Vedas contain no historical references. Therefore the prayers in question could not refer to the immolation of any historical personage.

(ii) The Veda gives absolutely no other name except that of Shuna Shepa (which should be taken in generic sense and not as a proper noun) in the passage. No other personages of the received tradition are to be found in the Veda.

(iii) According to the current story Shuna Shepa was sold for sacrificial purposes by his father. His king wanted to unjustly immolate Shuna Shepa instead of his own son and his father was acting as an executioner. Now the prayers in the Veda open by calling on God to enable the devotee to see his father once more. This prayer looks unreasonable in the mouth of one whose father is present before him and whom the father treats so cruelly.

(iv) In over ninety verses of prayer there is absolutely no reference to the unjust and cruel behaviour either of the king or of the father.

(v) Prayers for being released from bonds are offered by Vasishta (Rig. VII. 86.5) by Gritsamad (Rig. II. 28.5) and by Bhardvaja (VI.74-4). Evidently these refer to bonds of sin. As in these passages so in that of Shuna Shepa there is no reference to physical bonds or bloodshed.

(vi) Maurice Phillips says: “….we are not justified in concluding that Shuna Shepa was bound as victim to be sacrificed.

His bonds and ropes may be taken in a figurative sense.”

(vii) Romesha Chandra Datta also supports this view.

The general sense of the passage is that a sinner Shuna Shepa (not a particular individual) or sinful man/prana[?] (vital power) prays for deliverance from sin. He approaches the Deity first from one point of view and then from another till he worships Usha or Jnan (realization) and succeeds in breaking through his bonds of sin.

STRANGE CONFUSION.

The sacrificial translation of the 30th and the 31st chapters of the Yajur Veda is altogether stupid and inconsistent with itself. It creates such deities as Kshatra, Tapas, Nirta (dance); sport, laughter, pastime, etc. Clearly no pantheon of the world speaks of such divinities.There is no independent historical evidence to show that human sacrifices were ever offered anywhere in the world to divinities like these.The copula Alabhate which is supplied by these translators is not always correct and in agreement with the context. The Taittiriya Brahmana does not put this copula in all places.The meaning that is given to this copula is not in accordance with its Yogic sense. But all Vedic words are Yogic as proved by Pt. Gurudatta Vidyarthi in his book The Terminology of the Vedas—a book that had had the honour of being a text at the Oxford University.Alabhate is made up of (a) which means well or thoroughly and (Labha) which means to get or to secure. This interpretation is supported by Manu (II.170), by Subodhini Tika of the Mimansa (II.3-17) by Megha-Duta and by Apte’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary.

The stupidity of the sacrificial translation becomes palpable in the case of the 31st chapter or the Purusha Sukta of the Yajur Veda. Here the Deity is said to have one thousand heads and one thousand eyes! (Ordinarily one head has two eyes).

ORDER OUT OF DISORDER.

The moment we take the Yogic sense of the words the whole of the 30th chapter becomes one consistent and clear whole, so elevating and instructive. It begins by praying to the Almighty Savitra to help us in political affairs and to give us an educated, orator-like, just and righteous king. It describes in detail the qualities, qualifications and duties of a king; it names the elements that go to make up a perfect and ideal body political. The last mantra of the passage, which, to the distorted fancy of the perpetrator of cruelty in the form of animal sacrifice, requires the victims to be one too tall, one too short, one too white, one too black, etc., would be translated as under:

”Oh King as wise men accomplish their purposes by having intimate and thorough knowledge of things, great and small,visible and invisible, so you should be conversant with all sorts of things and acts…”

[dhyandev]

THE ASHWAMEDHA—HORSE SACRIFICE.

A great mischief has been caused by the misinterpretation of this Yajna. To understand the true significance of this Yajna we must understand what

Ashwa is. As it is usually with the Vedic words, this word has a great number of meanings.Shrijut Aurovindo Ghosh has emphasized the fact that the Vedic roots have various meanings. In supporting his position he has referred to the words ’Chandra’ and ’Gau.’ Ashwa according to the Shatapatha Brahmana (XIII.3.3) means God. Taking hold of this meaning we can without the least hesitation say that Ashwa Medha has spiritual significance. This view has been held up by Sjt. Aurovindo Ghosh in his ’ Arya. ’ Pt. Bhagwandas, M.A., in his Pranavavad also supports this view.Ashwa means horse as well as all such physical forces which can enable us to move quickly. In one place (Rig Veda) we read of Ashwa Agnim (Ashwa is heat). In another place we read Ashwa, the Agni (heat) carries, like the animals of conveyance, the learned who recognize its distance-carrying properties (Rig. 1.27-1). This idea is also supported by Shatapatha (III.3.29-30). On this principle Pt. Gurudatta translates the chand[?] hymn of the Rig Veda. His translation of the opening verse is as under:

“We will describe the power generating virtues of the energetic horses endowed with brilliant properties or the virtues of the vigorous force of heat which learned or scientific men can evoke to work for purposes of appliances (not sacrifice).Let not philanthropists, noble men, judges, learned men, rulers, wise men and practical mechanics ever disregard these properties.”

It might be said that the sacrificial translation, as usual, is full of stupidities. It assumes deities that none has ever heard of.It states that a horse is born of gods. It involves a self-contradiction inasmuch as it propitiates gods with horse sacrifice,yet believes that gods are annoyed to hear the praise of the horse to be sacrificed. Lastly, it disregards the clearest injunctions of the Vedic lexicographers and grammarians.

Ashwamedha also refers to polity. Political wisdom should so pervade the notion as Ashwa (God) pervades the universe. This is supported by the Shatapatha in the following words: “A king administers justice to his subjects, governs them properly, encourages learning among them, and performs homa by throwing the samagri (odoriferous materials),clarified butter in fire. This is Ashwamedha.”

On this principle the great Swami Dayanand Saraswati translates the 23rd chapter of the Yajur Veda. The learned writer strengthens his position by quoting [Rig.?] i.21, Shatapatha XIII.2.12.14-17, XIII.1.3.2, 2.6.15-17 and also XIII.2.2.4-5 and several other authorities.

The greatest argument in favour of this translation is that in it there is nothing immoral, obscene and disgusting as is to be seen in the sacrificial translation. The Mimansis—our great authority on interpretation—say that we must always take for granted that the teaching of the Rishis are always reasonable and rational.

THE MAHABHARATA.

This voluminous poem is so important and so infaranimg: greatly supports the views expressed here.In Anushasana Parva (115.56) is given the history of King Vasu. He was thrown from heaven because, though he knew that flesh was inedible he declared it to be edible. In the

Shanti Parva (338) the King is said to have fallen because,though he knew that animals should not be sacrificed, he asserted that they should be burnt in sacrificial fire. The Ashwamedha Parva (91.11 and the following) contains a very beautiful speech made by the Rishis of great penance moved by compassion at the condition of animals to be sacrificed by King Sharka. They say: “This method of sacrifice is not auspicious, oh Purandara! Animals have not been ordered to be slaughtered. Oh puisant one! These preparations of thine are destructive of merit… Oh thou of a hundred years do, thou, perform a sacrifice with seeds of grain that have been kept for three years.”The opinion given here finds support from the following in the Shanti Parva (265.45):

”Only those who transgress fixed limits, who are short of intelligence, who are atheists and sceptics, and who desire the acquisition of celebrity by sacrifices and religious rites speak highly of destruction of animal in sacrifices.”

“The pious Manu has spoken highly of harmlesshess in all acts. Indeed men kill animals actuated by desire of evil.”

The chapter 264 (6) echoes the same idea when it says: “All acts that are done without injuring creatures come to us both here and hereafter.”

The 47th shloka of the chapter 262 of the same volume calls cow by its Vedic name Aghanya (that which should not be killed) and the following asserts that Nahusha committed a sin in killing a cow. The chapter 272 giving the story of the Brahmana Satya is coroborative of the same. The Brahmana though a great ascetic diminished greatly in virtue for he thought of offering a deer at his sacrifice where he usually offered fruits, etc.

The 20th chapter of the same book suggests that at sacrifices animals were given in charity (and not killed). This idea is also found in the Mimansa.
source (http://agniveerfans.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/animal-sacrifice-before-deities/)

[Omkara]

This interpretation does not seem to be in accord with what the puranas and itihasas depict,or the instructions the brahmanas give in this regard.
The allegorical interpretation of the story of sunashepa is interesting,but needs to be clarified further.An explanation of the meanings of the names of the other characters and of he justification for imposing a contrived symbolic meaning would lend some credibiltiy. To it.As it stands,it cannot pass muster.

[Guiding Thoughts]

Vedic religion is very scientific. Yagya's were a way of life and there is scientific validation that if done rightly with the right ingredients they purified the atmosphere. Ashwamedha yagya's were large scale yagya's where a great nos of people in a region could participate .

The Ashwamedh horse has the following significance and none of it has to do with animal sacrifice:

1. The Ashwamedh Horse represent the animal instincts within us which have strong roots ( jealusy, hatred, anger, ill will, ego etc) and the purpose of these Yagnas was to spiritual charge people so they could work at conquering their base sells.

2. In ancient times as there were no billboards or TV or Radio , the advertising for these large scale events was manual. It was done by way of attaching an advertisement of the Yagna to the body of the horse. The horse then went to every street corner, village in the kings kingdom to advertise the event.

That is the glory of Yagna and the ashwamedha horse. At no point was it sacrificed. ANimal sacrifice is a distortion of the Vedic thoughts. The Vedas refer to sacrificing the "animal within us" and not a PHYSICAL ANIMAL.

Thanks .
For scientific explanations of Vedic philosophy pls visit us at :

http://guidingthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://www.spiritualbee.com/

[Omkara]

Namaste,

Please acquaint yourselves with our scriptures before issuing blanket condemnations of those who hold true to scriptural statements which you disagree with.

Maharaja Dasharatha's ashvamedha-yagna did involve sacrifice of a horse, as well as several other animals. This is explicitly mentioned in the Bala-Kanda of the Ramayana of Valmiki.

According to the 5th chapter of Manu-Samhita, the animals sacrificed in such a yagna get a higher birth (i.e. as human or deva).

These yagnas were the standard in the ages prior to Kali-yuga when proper brahmins were present who could execute the sacrifices flawlessly and for whom the spoken mantras did bear their fruits.

In short, if one wants to defend Hinduism, one must first understand Hinduism. If one defends Hinduism by quoting all sorts of revisionist theories, one will merely look like a laughing stock in front of those critics who actually read the texts. And make no mistake - they do read the texts. Therefore, we must understand the texts better than they.

regards,

This pretty much sums up my reaction to the previous post.If anybody has information from legitimate scriptural sources on the matter,please post it here.If not,do not post neo-Hindu revisionist theories in the midst of a serious discussion.

If you have proof that animals were not sacrificed,please share it.Do not simply claim they were not.

[Omkara]

There seems to be anargument going on in the talk page of the cited wikipedia article also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashvamedha

[Omkara]

These translations from the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan translation of Valmiki Ramayana seem to indicate that kshtriyas and brahmanas ate meat.Could someone provide Gita press translations for these?Griffith's and Arshia Sattar translation which I have,seem to corroborate.


For Vali's comments to Rama the reference is 4-17-39 and 4-17-40 below:

पंच पंच नखा भक्ष्या ब्रह्म क्षत्रेण राघव |
शल्यकः श्वाविधो गोधा शशः कूर्मः च पंचमः || १-१७-३९
39. raaghava = oh, Raghava; brahma kSatreNa = by Brahmans, Kshatriya-s; shalyakaH = a wild-rodent with defensive quills; shvaavidhaH = a kind of boar that kills dogs, wolves etc; godhaa = a lizard with unimaginable grip; shashaH = hare; pancamaH kuurmaH ca = fifthly, tortoise, also; panca = five [kinds of]; panca nakhaa = five nailed animals; bhakSyaa = are edible.
"Raghava, five kinds of five-nailed animals, viz., a kind of wild rodent, a kind of wild-boar, a kind of lizard, a hare and fifthly the turtle are edible for Brahmans and Kshatriya-s. [4-17-39]

and then 4-17-40:

चर्म च अस्थि च मे राजन् न स्पृशन्ति मनीषिणः |
अभक्ष्याणि च मांसानि सो अहम् पंच नखो हतः || १-१७-४०
40. raajan = oh, king; maniiSiNaH = sensible people; me carma ca asthi ca = my, skin, also, bones, also; na spR^ishanti = will not, touch; maamsaani ca = meats, also a bhakSyaaNi = not, to be eaten; panca nakhaH = five, nailed one; saH aham hataH = such as I am, I am killed.
"Sensible people will not touch my skin and bones, oh, king, nor meats from my body are to be eaten, such as I am, a five-nailed animal, I am killed. [4-17-40]
'There appears to be no reason as to why a five-nailed animal like me is to be killed, when there is no reason for political, religious, hunting, or food purposes. Then this act of yours shall have an ultimate purpose isn't it....'


Namaste Param,

Let's not be so passionately attached to what we believe in. I am a vegetarian but a majority of Hindus are non-vegetarians including Brahmins in states like North Bihar, Bengal, Assam and Odisha. The VAmArgis and Aghori Sadhus are well known for their being non-vegetarian. In fact, the Aghris have no qualms in eating meat from the corpses too.

In fact, in Valmiki RamAyaNa, there are a few verses where Meat eating or offering to God is suggested :

1. suraaghaTasahasreNa maamsabhuutodanena cha |
yakshye tvaam prayataa devi puriim punarupaagataa || 2-52-89

89. devii= “Oh, goddess! Upaagata= After reaching; puriim= the city (Ayodhya); punaH= again; yakshhye= I shall worship (you); suraaghata sahasreNa= with thousand pots of spirituous liquor; maamsa bhuutodanena cha = and jellied meat with cooked rice; prayataa= well-prepared for the solemn rite.”

“Oh, goddess! After reaching back the city of Ayodhya, I shall worship you with thousand pots of spirituous liquor and jellied meat with cooked rice well prepared for the solemn rite.”

2. tau tatra hatvaa caturaH mahaa mR^igaan |
varaaham R^ishyam pR^iSatam mahaa rurum |
aadaaya medhyam tvaritam bubhukSitau|
vaasaaya kaale yayatur vanaH patim || 2-52-102


Having hunted there four deer, namely Varaaha, Rishya, Prisata; and Mahaaruru (the four principal species of deer) and taking quickly the portions that were pure, being hungry as they were, Rama and Lakshmana reached a tree to take rest in the evening.

3. samaashvasa muhuurtam tu shakyam vastum iha tvayaa || 3-47-22
aagamiSyati me bhartaa vanyam aadaaya puSkalam |
ruruun godhaan varaahaan ca hatvaa aadaaya amiSaan bahu || 3-47-23

“Be comfortable for a moment, here it is possible for you to make a sojourn, and soon my husband will be coming on taking plentiful forest produce, and on killing stags, mongooses, wild boars he fetches meat, aplenty. [3-47-22b, 23]

Again Kabandh talks to Rama on reaching Pampa Lake :

"Oh, Rama in that Pampa Lake there are best fishes, red-carps, and blunt-snouted small porpoises, and a sort of sprats, which are neither scraggy, nor with many fish-bones. Lakshmana will reverentially offer them to you on skewering them with arrow, and on broiling them on iron rod of arrow after descaling and de-finning them. While you eat those fishes to satiety, Lakshmana will offer you the water of Pampa Lake, which will be in the bunches of flowers of that lake, and which will be lotus-scented, pellucid, comfortably cool, shiny like silver and crystal, uncontaminated and that way pristine, by lifting it up that water with lotus leaf, making that leaf a stoup-like basin..."

Again this vow of RAm suggests that probably he ate meat :

RAm Said : 'I must go alone to wilds, abstain from flesh, and living there on roots, fruit, honey, hermit's food, pass twice seven years (14 yrs.) in solitude. To Bharata's hand the king will yield the regent power I thought to wield, and me, a hermit, will he send my days in Dandak wood to spend.' " -- Ramayana 2:20"


I am not suggesting by quoting these passages that RAm ate meat or whatever. However, it does give an indication that meat eating was not that much abhorred in that time otherwise, these passages would not have come up in the context of RAm in VAlmiki RAmAyaNa.

Moreover, there are many a ShAkta temples where meat/fish is offered to Goddess during worship. This meat is eaten by people as prasAdam.

So, we are wasting our energy by unnecessarily becoming emotional on this issue. Let's stop it here. It has been discussed ad nauseam in folder Hot Topics in this forum. So, if anyone is interested in this topic, he/she can very well visit that folder.

OM


On the question of Agastya and Illvala and Vatapi episode see below the verses before Agastya enters the picture:


iha ekadaa kila kruuro vaataapiH api ca ilvalaH |
bhraatarau sahitau aastaam braahmaNaghnau mahaa asurau || 4-11-55

55. ekadaa iha braahmaNa ghnau= once, here, Brahmans, killers of; kruuraH vaataapiH api ca ilvalaH= cruel ones, Vaataapi, even, also, Ilvala; bhraatarau mahaa asurau sahitau aastaam kila= brothers, dreadful demons, together, they were here, they say.
"Once upon a time verily cruel demon brothers Vaataapi and Ilvala were here together, and they the dreadful demons, they say, used to be Bhraman-killers. [4-11-55]


dhaarayan braahmaNam ruupam ilvalaH sa.mskR^itam vadan |
aama.ntrayati vipraan sa shraaddham uddishya nirghR^iNaH || 4-11-56

56. dhaarayan braahmaNam ruupam= disguising, Bhraman's, semblance; ilvalaH= Ilvala; sam skR^itam vadan= sophisticatedly, speaking; aamantrayati vipraan= invite, Brahman; sa shraaddham uddishya= obsequial ceremony, purpose of; nir ghR^iNaH= pitiless ones.
"Disguising in Bhraman's semblance and speaking sophisticatedly that Ilvala used to invite Brahmans for the purpose of obsequial ceremonies, where Brahman are fed after usual ceremony to appeases their manes. [4-11-56]


bhraataram sa.mskR^itam kR^itvaa tataH tam meSa ruupiNam |
taan dvijaan bhojayaamaasa shraaddha dR^iSTena karmaNaa || 4-11-57

57. tataH= then; meSa ruupiNam= in ram's, form; tam bhraataram= that, brother [Vaataapi,] is; sam skR^itam kR^itvaa= perfecting, made to [cooked deliciously]; tataH shraaddha dR^iSTena karmaNaa= then, according to obsequial rites, and deeds; taan dvijaan bhojayaamaasa= them, Brahman, he was feeding.
Then Ilvala used to make his brother Vaataapi into a ram, perfect that ram's meat into deliciously cooked food, and used to feed Brahmans according to obsequial rites and deeds. [4-11-57]


tato bhuktavataam teSaam vipraaNaam ilvalo abraviit |
vaataape niSkramasva iti svareNa mahataa vadan || 4-11-58

58. tataH teSaam vipraaNaam bhuktavataam= then, those, Brahmans, when surfeited; ilvalaH mahataa svareNa vadan= Ilvala, with loud voice, shouting; vaataape niS kramasva iti abraviit= oh, Vaataapi, you exit, thus, he said [use to say]
"When those Brahmans are surfeited with that ram's meat, then Ilvala used to shout loudly, "oh, Vaataapi, you may come out." [4-11-58]


tato bhraatur vacaH shrutvaa vaataapiH meSavat nadan |
bhittvaa bhitvaa shariiraaNi braahmaNaanaam viniSpatat || 4-11-59

59. tataH vaataapiH bhraatuH vacaH shrutvaa= then, Vaataapi, brother's, words, on listening; nadan meSa vat= bleating, like, a ram; bhittvaa bhitvaa= tearing, tearing; shariiraaNi braahmaNaanaam= bodies, of Brahman; vi niS patat= used to lunge out.
"Then on listening his brother's words Vaataapi used to lunge out bleating like a ram, tearing and rending the bodies of those Brahmans. [4-11-59]


braahmaNaanaam sahasraaNi taiH evam kaama ruupibhiH |
vinaashitaani sa.mhatya nityashaH pishita ashanaiH || 4-11-60

60. taiH [taabhyaam]= by those two brothers; pishita ashanaiH= raw meat, eaters kaama ruupibhiH= them, thus, guise-changers; [or, pishita aashayaa= for flesh, greedy ones]; braahmaNaanaam sahasraaNi= Brahman, thousands; evam vi naashitaani samhatya nityashaH= this way, are ruined, together, always.
"This way they the guise changing demons always ruined thousands of Brahmans together, greedy for raw-flesh as they are. [4-11-60]

[ShivaFan]

These translations from the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan translation of Valmiki Ramayana seem to indicate that kshtriyas and brahmanas ate meat.Could someone provide Gita press translations for these?Griffith's and Arshia Sattar translation which I have,seem to corroborate.
Namaste

Actually Omkara brings up an engaging question, which no doubt has been a thorn of controversy on the HDF in the past, of which is the inquiry did Brahmins eat meat in the past (we know many who say they are Brahmin which do so in the present)?

I know part of this question also asks whether did Kshatriyas eat meat, now, in the past, and why as well. But I believe they did, do, and will – I will note Ramayana in a minute. But I am sparked by the question of Brahmins eating meat.

Perhaps a new thread (outside of the current thread) on its own standing might be interesting since it doesn’t hurt to re-engage such popular analysis even if discussed in the past. To be honest though, I probably would stay out of the discussion but would enjoy reading the comments of others and their ideas on the matter.

Just a brief comment, I am taught that Garuda ate snakes. And that Garuda is a Brahmin, yes? So there is one concrete example of a Brahmin eating meat. But I mention this only because, the comparision between God and man are not the same, and doing so is not in context of Brahmins, since I believe this discussion is about humans and not Gods. Just because Garuda ate snakes, does not mean it is ok or wise for me to eat snakes. I may take small portions of pit viper or cobra venom daily (which I do) but this is not meat eating, I may drink cow urine but this is not meat eating, and I as a human currently in a human body, I should not recommend that I eat snakes nor should others no matter what guna or vision or ranking or anything one is. Gods are not humans, if Garuda eats snakes that does not have anything to do with what I should eat.

So if a Deva or Devi does something, that doesn't mean we should also do that.

One thing I agree with, the world needs more vegans because they all seem to be such beautiful souls. Of course there are exceptions, and some vegans are monsters or even historical mass murderers of humans. But such bad examples seem to be few and far in-between.

Everyone knows my stance of varna and jati, we do not need to go down that argument as no one will change my position where I object to four varna becoming 6,000 jati, and while I am taught the truth of karma, I do not agree that caste is strictly by birth (I believe in the role of gunas and I have been taught that one can become a Brahmin in a single hour of a single life). But in the context “did Brahmins eat meat?” if a Brahmin accidently eats meat, I am not so sympathetic to others who take advantage of such an accident and who are very strict and call such a Brahmin to now be untouchable and such. Sometimes evil people do tricks for all sorts of perverted reasons. I do want to mention that I consider these modern attacks on Brahmins, including trying to put cow or pig in their food as tricks, and the ignorant fools and politicians and despots who persecute and want to pull the holy thread off the Brahmins as an abomination deserving of immediate countermeasures.

But in regards to “eating meat” (among Brahmins), I believe personally that all Brahmins should, must and according to scripture, restrict from eating cow or pig, and vegetarian is better, even if that is not currently always true among their community. So as far as I am concerned, if any Brahmin is eating for example cow or pig on purpose, they are not nor ever will be a Brahmin to my view no matter who their parents are.

I think all Brahmins will not eat the cow or the pig. I cannot find any examples of this from personal observation, though I have seen many Hindus eating things such as sausage which is pig, I have seen Sikhs wearing a turban and gobbling down sausage for breakfast in public (but I did not know if either were Brahmin – note, I am told a Sikh can also be a Brahmin so I am not putting both into one bucket out of ignorance, and yes I understand that the general consensus says otherwise). So the term “meat eating” is not the same discussion per say as Vedic and other restrictions on eating “animals of merit” (such as the cow) or “dirty animals” (such as the domestic pig).

A Brahmana is suppose to be satwa guna. That means they should not want to do harm to other creatures. So it is a question of doing harm to other creatures, and not a question of eating meat, yes? Even then, there is room for reason. If a tiger is about to attack you, you may do harm to that tiger. Sometimes it is necessary. Sometimes, even eating something which is not meat can also do harm to other living creatures, and thus violates the principle of satvik. The example is given of the sacred white jackal of India which some grow a horn that is hidden under the fur and has magical powers. This jackal is said to eat only a certain fruit, while his other brothers eat rodents. Now, let us use this example, and assume the fruit that this jackal eats only grows on a few trees in a grove next to the Pampa Lake, and me and my friends go and eat all the fruits off those trees, and even chop down those trees. I have not eaten any meat. But I have done harm to another creature. I have taken the food away from the animal of merit. So I am guilty as charged.

So isn’t this the guiding principle?

Goud Saraswat Brahmins in India eat meat such as fish, many proudly proclaim they do. These Brahmins have roots that proclaim linage going back to the time when they were Brahmins on the banks of the Saraswati River. Today they are mostly found on the west coast.

It may be true that the evidence in the Ramayana shows Brahmins eating meat. But I do not believe there is any evidence of such eating cow. There might be a question over boar, but wild boar is not the same as pig, but of course eating boar is very bad and should be avoided. As far as Rama eating meat, I think He did but very little, and Rama was a great warrior and had duty to perform and if He did so that does not mean anything bad to me in my opinion. There are reasons for everything Lord Rama did, there are no contradictions.

So for what it is worth, these things in the Ramayana are not of a concern as it might be to others. But I also am interested in the query of Omkara regarding further translations, such as from Gita press, which would be greatly appreciated!

Om Namah Sivaya

[Omkara]

Hi,an update on the issue of meat eating in vedic times-The mahabharata says kshatryas are allowed to hunt (Mahabharata 13.115.59–60; 13.116.15–18.)

I don't know if this is an interpolation.

[philosoraptor]

Hi,an update on the issue of meat eating in vedic times-The mahabharata says kshatryas are allowed to hunt (Mahabharata 13.115.59–60; 13.116.15–18.)

I don't know if this is an interpolation.

Doubtful. That POV seems to be supported by other references that I have seen in the Raamaayana. Then again, Raama also says something to the effect of not really enjoying hunting - the sense I got from the verses is that hunting is acceptable, presumably to hone one's military skills and also to make forests safer (at least when it comes to hunting dangerous animals), but that one should not take pleasure in it.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


Hi,an update on the issue of meat eating in vedic times-The mahabharata says kshatryas are allowed to hunt (Mahabharata 13.115.59–60; 13.116.15–18.)

I don't know if this is an interpolation.

This is what Bhagvatam says in this regards;

tiirtheShu pratidriiShTeShu raajaa medhyaan pashuun vane
yaavadarthamala.m lubdho hanyaad iti imamate - Bhagavata Purana 4.26.6

"If a king is too attracted to eating flesh, he may, according to the directions of the revealed scriptures on sacrificial performances, go to the forest and kill some animals that are recommended for killing. One is not allowed to kill animals unnecessarily or without restrictions. The Vedas regulate animal-killing to stop the extravagance of foolish men influenced by the modes of passion and ignorance."

Jai Shree Krishna

[dhyandev]

Doubtful. That POV seems to be supported by other references that I have seen in the Raamaayana. Then again, Raama also says something to the effect of not really enjoying hunting - the sense I got from the verses is that hunting is acceptable, presumably to hone one's military skills and also to make forests safer (at least when it comes to hunting dangerous animals), but that one should not take pleasure in it.


Good one dude,long time no see!

[Omkara]

I have been reading the Satapatha Brahmana recently, and came across this very interesting verse, which i think proves conclusively that the purushamedha is not a literal human sacrifice. It is also related to some of the discussions being held in other threads about lord Shiva and lord vishnu in the vedas.

Satapatha Brahmana 13.6.1.1
1. Purusha Nârâyana desired, 'Would that I overpassed all beings! would that I alone were everything here (this universe)!' He beheld this five-days’ sacrificial performance, the Purushamedha, and took it , and performed offering therewith; and having performed offering therewith, he overpassed all beings, and became everything here. And, verily, he who, knowing this, performs the Purushamedha, or who even knows this, overpasses all beings, and becomes everything here.

In relation to discussions in other threads, it is particularly interesting that Narayana witnessed the original Purushamedha and replicated it(Narayana is considered to be the seer of purusha-sukta) and that infinitude and all-pervasiveness are qualities that Narayana attained at a certain point in time.

[philosoraptor]

Interesting. Can you give me the publication info on the Shatapatha Brahmana you are using? I think that recension is the different from the one I have, and I would like to get it.

[Omkara]

Interesting. Can you give me the publication info on the Shatapatha Brahmana you are using? I think that recension is the different from the one I have, and I would like to get it.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/

[Guiding Thoughts]

Hi . Akhand Jyoti magazine carries the thoughts and writings of Acharya Shriram Sharma. Shriram Sharma Acharya established the Gayatri Parivaar and wrote over 3000 books in his life.

There is an article that details out the practice of Ashwamedha Yagna in Akhand Jyoti magazine.A link to that article is enclosed here as is an excerpt from our Facebook page:

"WHAT was the ASHVAMEDHA YAGNA? You'll be surprised to know its NOTHING to do with the myth of HORSE SACRIFICE!

ASHVA stands for a Horse, and a Horse signifies = VITALITY
MEDHA stands for INTELLIGENCE.
Therefore ASHVAMEDHA term stands for generating VITALITY+ INTELLIGENCE in large populations, through the process of participating and organising large scale YAGNA's where large number of people participated.

MARKETING the YAGNA : Utilised the services of a HORSE. A banner describing, the location, place , time and other relevant details of the Yagna , was placed on the HORSE's BACK and the horse was allowed to ROAM through the streets of a Kingdom as a moving advertisement of the YAGNA.
In the absence of the TV, internet, newspapers, a moving horse was used to advertise the YAGNA and to INVITE all to attend and contribute."

To read more on the topic of Ashvamedha Yagna's and the science behind them , read Akhand Jyoti , July- Aug 2005, issue online. Click the link below:

http://www.akhandjyoti.org/?Akhand-Jyoti%2F2005%2FJul-Aug%2FYajnaNotFaithAlsoScience.3

Regards

[philosoraptor]

Evidence is always more valuable than merely opinions.

regards,