Originally Posted by Bhakta of God
From given verses of Gita how it comes that coffee, tea and alcohol are rajasic or tamasic?
When used with proper balance, they bring "strength, health, happiness and satisfaction" and fall into sattvic group.
Originally Posted by Bhakta of God
From given verses of Gita how it comes that coffee, tea and alcohol are rajasic or tamasic?
When used with proper balance, they bring "strength, health, happiness and satisfaction" and fall into sattvic group.
Immediate and explicit damage pertains to intoxication effect. Medical Science even prescribes intoxication to mentally retarded patients but it cannot be dealt as medicine to all.Originally Posted by Arjuna
Medical Science also tells us that one peg of properly diluted alcohol taken in, leaves a man with 15 mins of intoxication.
Whether medicine or not, intoxication is not adviced - even it is red wine, hence alcohol is fully avoided. There is no twist of facts herein.
This is correct according to Vaishnava doctrine, but this is not a rule for everyone.Originally Posted by ramkish42
Seemingly U do not understand the exact meaning of "intoxication". Dictionary says:
intoxicate |in?täksik?t| verb [ trans. ] [usu. as adj. ] ( intoxicated) (of alcoholic drink or a drug) cause (someone) to lose control of their faculties or behavior. • poison.
There are two basic meanings, one of loosing control and another of poisoning.
Then, alcohol becomes a poison only is large amounts, and in moderate amounts it is healthy. Again, if taken properly it doesn't cause any loss of control or awareness.
Vedas and Tantras clearly condemn drinking which results in loss of control over oneself. Tantras call such drinking "pashupana." But there is no problem to drink alcohol in such a way that neither damage to psycic nor damage to body occurs.
In this case the only reason to intentfully abstain is prescription of particular sampradaya or one's Guru.
What i want to tell by there is no need to twist facts — alcohol if one drinks it properly doesn't cause intoxication in both sense of the word. And that is why general Scriptures allow it and some prescribe its ritual and yogic usage.
Ramkish,Originally Posted by ramkish42
Dont waste your time arguing with people who are outside the vedanta. That will be like talking to a Buddhist and convincing him of your position.
If somebody does not accept the authroity of the vedanta, Brahma sutras, the main Itihasas like Ramayana, Mahabaratha, and Gita, and puranas like Vishnu Purana it is nearly pointless.
These people will come with obscure quote from some xx smriti or even bogus texts and upanishads which have absolutely no authority before Bhagavatam or Ramayana. It is strange to see that such positions are passed on as Hinduism these days, to support the view that Hindusim supports everything. Hinduism is being ridiculed because some people like these are still promoting that Hinduism supports alcohol consumption, meat eating, and all unorthodox forms of Yoga.
I understand why Sri Ramanuja was so strict in his philosophy. If you give people some room for being deviant, they wil go to any level and interpret scripture to their convencience, and justify their actions.
I would like Hindus to actually move forward (instead of backward), and provide sane interpretations for even those scriptural passages that are immoral, ridiculous or unorthodox. It appears that people still want to eat meat, get intoxicated, be licentious and just looking for an excuse in the scripture.
I remember a temple where alcohol is served as the prasadam, because the diety there is Shiva in the form of the hunter as he appeared to Arjuna.
There was also a temple in my place where they used to make obscene dances in public during the annual temple festival and citing that the Goddess there had commanded them to do so in their dreams. The king at that time put an end to this practice by overriding the commands in the dream.
So much people will do to justify their own actions. Have you ever seen this in a positive way? That is Hindus acting against scripture, to justify morality and goodness? If Bhagavad Gita ordered me to kill "infidels", I would refuse to do that, because we know God cannot do that!(it must be an interpolation or misinterpretation)
Hinduism teaches you to place God above everything, and not to bow to your personal pleasures and temptations. If you read scripture with this in mind, its meanings will be clear.
Om namO nArAyaNAya
--------
srIman nArAyaNa caranau caranam prapadye srImate nArAyaNAya namaha
--------
sarva-dharmAn parityajna mAm Ekam saranam vraja
aham tvan sarva- papebhyo moksayisyAmi ma suchah
I accept the authority of given scriptures, though of course these are not the main authority since ALL these aren't Shruti per se. Only Gita, though in fact Smriti, is considered to be equal to Shruti in authority.Originally Posted by Ram
Regarding Puranas, for Shaivas and Shaktas other Puranas are primary, which include Shiva-purana, Vayu-purana, Brahmanda-purana, Markandeya-purana, Skanda-purana, Agni-purana, Kurma-purana, Devibhagavata-purana, Kalika-purana. However Puranas are just additional scriptures and never essential ones.
Shaktism and Shaivism are based on twofold Shruti: Agamas and Nigamas (Vedas and Upanishads).
Very wrongly U put Shaivism and Shaktism in a same line with Buddhism, which is anti-Vedic. The whole of Shakta and Shaiva traditions are in accordance with Vedas and essentially are rooted in an independent Agamic revelation.
Baseless insult. Which text that i have cited U claim to be bogus?Originally Posted by Ram
Bhagavatam is probably a later fabrication (or at least considerably changed from original one) and Ramayana is an Itihasa — both cannot be equal in authority to Upanishads (i speak of orthodox Muktika canon), Vedas and Agamas!
Hinduism is NOT only Vaishnavism. It started from Vedic religion, which in fact does accept all mantioned things!Originally Posted by Ram
God is indeed above everything.Originally Posted by Ram
Why do U limit Him to Ur tradition only? Who gave U a monopoly to judge what can be Hinduism and what cannot? Very sectarian position. "My path is the only path"...
But Vedas say, Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti.
I see how the term "alcoholism" is frequently tossed around in society yet few people even use it for the proper definition of the word. Your pargraphs thus did not make sense as "alcoholism" isn't suitable for anyone and not just Brahmins. Alcoholism refers to those that become addicted to alcohol and become mentally and physically dependent on having more and more of the substance. Such people will have physical withdrawl symptoms when they try to kick the habit. Similar to drug addicts, their entire day-to-day life revolves around the next drink. Alcoholism can also refer to "dry drunks" that have to go binge drink every once in a while just to feel normal and drink to a dangerous level unable to count how many drinks they had.Originally Posted by Ram
Social drinking is not alcoholism. Becoming drunk once in a while but in safe and controlled environment is not alcoholism. Drinking when it doesn't negatively impact required life responsibilities is not alcoholism. Even drinking in excess is not alcoholism, it just means abuse. Alcholism refers to alcohol addicts. It is important to clarify these issues so people can be properly educated. Some one told me the other day that drinking wine out of the bottle is "alcoholism." That is ridiculous. All it means is that they preferred not to pour it into a glass. ~BYS~
Interesting enough, nobody answered my request to actually post ONE line from a Hindu scripture saying alcohol is prohibited. I am not asking for indirect references that merely hint that alcohol may be bad for you. I want to see just ONE reference saying "alcohol is prohibited." I'm waiting but not holding my breath. As usual, a number of Vaishnavas here accuse everyone who disagrees with them as being un-Hindu yet these same people cannot even prove their point with quoted references. Ridiculous. ~BYS~
Vedas are not moral guidelines. They do not provide any instructions to live, except giving spiritual instruction.Originally Posted by Bhakti Yoga Seeker
You have to look for references in smriti which may not be acceptable to all. Again, they have classifed the rules differently for Brahmins, and other castes. If something is forbidden for a Brahmin , it is safe to assume that doing of the forbidden act is spiritually inconducive. Unlike other religion, Hinduism does not dictate terms like Christianity to get it right the first time. Unless you really beleive the caste system to be hereditary, there is no reason to assume that one should try to borrow rules for other castes and dilute the shastras. One should strive to be a Brahmin - that is the goal of Hinduism, atleast that is Vaishnava point of view. (unlless you want to believe in hereditary classifications)
Apastamba Dharmashastras have clearly condemned consumption of liquor, though it can be interpreted in many ways to "allow" certain types of alcohols to pass through.
From Apastamba Dharmasutras:
1.7.21
8. (These are) stealing (gold), crimes whereby one becomes an Abhisasta, homicide, neglect of the Vedas, causing abortion, incestuous connection with relations born from the same womb as one's mother or father, and with the offspring of such persons, drinking spirituous liquor, and intercourse with persons the intercourse with whom is forbidden.
1.9.25:
3. A drinker of spirituous liquor shall drink exceedingly hot liquor so that he dies.
10. Those who have committed a theft (of gold), drunk spirituous liquor, or had connection with a Guru's wife, but not those who have slain a Brâhmana, shall eat every fourth meal-time a little food, bathe at the times of the three libations (morning, noon, and evening), passing the day standing and the night sitting. After the lapse of three years they throw off their guilt.
That is your prejudice. Vaishnavism frames its moral and spiritual values taking into account the best provided by all Dharma Shastras, and does not train anyone to be delinquents. Not many other sects do that, and have tried to promote it in the past - which have been vigorously opposed for the sake of preserving the essence of the religion.( which are called sectarianism). Multiple interpretations are certainly possible, but the Vaishnava interpretation will always revolve round the better side with the welfare of humanity in mind. If the scripture says different things in different places, Vaishnavas will always take the better one.Originally Posted by Bhakti Yoga Seeker
There is no problem with any interpretation, but if we agree on that the highest goal of Hinduism is God realization, why not lean on those interpretations that are more spiritual in nature? The ideal moral guidelines for everyone is provided by Patanjali's Yama Niyama which can be practised by all with some dilutions.
Yama:
Ahimsa, or non violence
Satya - Truthfulness
Asteya - Non stealing
Brahmacharya - chastity, and striving to be have the Brahminical qualities.
Aparigraha - non possesion, or contentment
Niyama:
Shoucha - inner and external purity
Santosha - cheerfulness and contentment
Tapas - The thirst for God realization, or penance
svadhyaya - study of scripture and daily prayers
Isvara Pranidhana - Dedication to God.
Some of the rules can be reframed so that it is practicable for everyone. If you do whatever you want, you are a materialist Doing so will have to be branded as un-Hinduic whatever others think of it.
Whatever you want want to think of it, all of Shankara's, Ramanuja's or Madhva's and similar traditions have taken the most conducive spiritual code, and have not provided any exceptions. Traditional Hindu systems revolve on Yama and Niyama which are not just Hindu code of life, but a universal spiritual way of life.
Leave alone Vaishnavas. Do you think consumption of liquor, or killing animals, or eating meet sanctioned for the smartas? They are NOT.
Om namO nArAyaNAya
--------
srIman nArAyaNa caranau caranam prapadye srImate nArAyaNAya namaha
--------
sarva-dharmAn parityajna mAm Ekam saranam vraja
aham tvan sarva- papebhyo moksayisyAmi ma suchah
Which school of Shakatism is founded on vedanta? Where is a commentary for the Brahma sutras based on Shaktaism?Originally Posted by Arjuna
What do you mean by vedic? Shaktaism states that the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva have Devi as the source. Can you substantiate this with vedic pramANas? Agamas are not proofs. There is considerable evidence to show that the term nArAyaNA is equated to Brahman uniformly in the shruti, and that every being has its source in this being. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence to show that rudra and Devi are created by nArAyaNa. At the best, you can argue that they are avatars or amsas of nArAyaNa. Bhagavad Gita has put everything in favour of this position. If at all, you can establish anything from the shruti, you can prove that Shiva and Devi are avatar of Vishnu. However, both Shaivism and Shaktaism do not hold this position, and hence not in accordance with shruti.Originally Posted by arjuna
We are not talking about revelations or even the truth. We are talking about vedic authority. If Christianity is the ultimate truth in the way they state it, we are all bound for hell. So that is not the issue.
Quotes grom Gandharva etc.Originally Posted by Arjuna
Muktika itself is a fabricated Upanishad. Show that Muktika was quoted by any early vedantin. Infact, when early advatins compiled a list of Upanishads, they never used Muktika.Originally Posted by Arjuna
If you claim that Bhagavatam is a later fabrication, you have to prove it, and also show evidence that such opinion was held by an ancient authority. At any rate, any person trying to prove that Bhagavatam was a later fabrication, can be convieniently ignored in a discussion like this, where people are expected to have fundamental Hindu beleifs, atleast on the authority of scriptures.
I have never stated that anywhere. Vedas do not accept all things, however, that is your imagination.Originally Posted by Arjuna
I would probably be willing to concede that all religions rooted in the fundamentals of Yoga, whether it be Vaishnavism, Shaktaism, or Shaivism. But is is certainly not the kind of Yoga that you are promoting, where alcoholism, meat eating etc are allowed.
I have never said that. It is your own imagination. I have repeatedly stated that Durga Ma is my family diety. For non advatins, there is a limit in equating everything. I do not equate myself to God, and nor equate anybody else. For you, you think that you are God, and assume that anybody who thinks otherwise is sectarian.Originally Posted by Arjuna
I would have say this - For Vaishnavas, people are only following their Acharyas even if they appear sectarian. I have even provided reasons on the need for this apparent sectarianim - it is a need to enforce some discipline on people. If you think they are wrong, you have to prove it. If you call people as sectarian, you are directly accusing their Acharyas without realizing that these Acharyas have composed great works and establishing their credentials.( to which you cannot even give a counter)
For smartas or advaitins, this entire discussion is moot, and of no signifiance. Yet you waste a lot of time in such discussions, occasionally trying to disprove Vaishnavism, when you could simply ignore it. You are not even following your Acharyas. And even against Adi Shankara's own beleifs - it must be noted that even though Adi Shankara was an advaitin, most of his quotes in Brahma sutras, Gita Bhaashya and even in his commentaries on Upanishads are taken from Vaishnava Puranas, which must speak for itself.
I am not interested in any further debate on this matter. Please wind up. And please follow the words of advaita Acharayas and treat Vaishnavism and Shaivism with equanimity. (which you dont seem to )
As a Vaishnaviate, I am not obliged to do so, even if I have to follow my Acharya, so there is no fault you can find with me. It would however be an Acharya ninda for me to speak against what has been ordained by Sri Ramanuja in public. I would perhaps be the nicest Vaishnava you could come across because I would be willing to concede that Shiva and Devi are possibly avatars of Sriman Narayana, while most of other Vaishnavas would probably disagree with me, and you can see I had to pick up a "fight " on another thread on this issue. If you cannot compromise with me, you cannot do so with any other Vaishnava on this planet.
However, you must note my reasons for rejecting the philosophy of Shaivism. It has nothing to do with Shiva, but with its advaitic teaching, which is against Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras and the vedas as a whole. Shiva is as dear to me as Vishnu, but I have to reject Shaivisim because it teaches equality of this suffering soul and God.
Last edited by Ram; 07 May 2006 at 02:33 AM.
Om namO nArAyaNAya
--------
srIman nArAyaNa caranau caranam prapadye srImate nArAyaNAya namaha
--------
sarva-dharmAn parityajna mAm Ekam saranam vraja
aham tvan sarva- papebhyo moksayisyAmi ma suchah
Vedanta is NOT Shruti, Shruti is ONLY Vedas (including Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads) and Agamas.Originally Posted by Ram
Brahma-sutra, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Yoga-vasishtha, Harivamsha, Puranas (including Bhagavatam), Grihya-sutras, Dharma-sutras etc are not Shruti, but Smriti.
I have said that Shaivism and Shaktism are based upon Shruti — which mean Agamas (28 Shaivagamas, 64 Bhairavagamas, Kaulagamas, Shiva-sutras). It verily needn't be based on Brahma-sutras, which are a foundation of Vedanta-darshana only, and were written by Badarayana.
However there is a Shakta commentary, which i already mentioned: Shakti-bhashya on Brahma-sutras.
Utterly false.Originally Posted by Ram
Rudra is the supreme Lord in Yajur- and Atharvana-vedas, in several Upanishads including one of 11 great Upanishads, namely Shvetashvatara. None of these Upanishads are Vaishnava. In Kenopanishad it is Uma (Devi) who reveals the knowledge of Brahman to gods.
Shaktism is based upon Vedic Shruti, which includes several orthodox Upanishads. Right in the beginning of Devyupanishad (it is one of the Muktika canon) it is said that Devi is Brahman, the Sourse of the world and gods like Indra, Soma, Vishnu, Brahma etc.
The very concept of avatara is not present in the whole of Vedic Shruti.Originally Posted by Ram
Vishnu is Vedas is called Upendra, "little Indra", far from being the Supreme One!
There are enough orthodox Upanishads and Vedic passages establishing Rudra and Devi as Supreme Deity.
It is Sarabhanga who quoted Gandharva from Shivamahimna-stotra — well accepted orthodox text.Originally Posted by Ram
If U mean Gandharva-tantra, it is one of orthodox Shrividya Agamas.
What is bogus, again?
Now U start denying parts of Shruti simply because it isn't in Ur favor!Originally Posted by Ram
All Vaishnava Upanishads are also later and sectarian, while at least one Shaiva Upanishad, Shvetashvatara, is indeed ancient and all-accepted.
Another Mahapuranas give lakshanas of Bhagavata, which Vaishnava Bhagavata doesn't meet. For instance, it has to explain Gayatri — which is explained in Devibhagavata and not in Vaishnava one.Originally Posted by Ram
The details of this issue can be seen from scholarly works, for example "The Triumph of the Goddess".
However there are many evidences that Vedas and great Upanishads DO have meat eating and sexual rituals in the cult, whether U like it or not.Originally Posted by Ram
Alcoholism is rejected by all, while drinking of alcohol is accepted in Vedas, Smriti and Shaiva/Shakta Agamas.Originally Posted by Ram
The problem is that U impose Vaishnava beliefs upon the whole of Hinduism and deny other sampradayas which are not less valid.Originally Posted by Ram
I do not argue that Vaishnavism rejects alcohol and meat, but i argue that Vedic and Agamic cult verily has a place for these! Smriti permits these as well. Evidences were provided, and one has to divert and twist the whole of Shruti to try to prove this wrong.
Advaita-darshana is never restricted to Shaivism and Shaktism. There are at least two schools of Vaishnavism which are monistic: Shuddhadvaita of Vallabha and Kashmirian monistic Vaishnavism.
Advaita (which is not necessarily Shankara's) is firmly based on Vedas, Upanishads, Agamas and is in total accordance with Gita and Brahma-sutras.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks