[Advaita-l] Karma-Kanda

[Sanjay Srivastava]

Sri Murali Mohan wrote:

> Could not have practices such as the part on animal sacrifice etc be added during this time to cater to some nefarious purpose?

How do we know what is "nefarious"?

I am by nature averse to animal sacrifices, so I do not go for them.
That does not make them "nefarious". I am averse to military
professions for the very similar reasons, so I do not go for the
military. That does not give me any rights to condemn military
professions as "nefarious".

My personal likings have nothing to do with what is "nefarious". Only
that is "nefarious" which is against the vedas.

Non-violence is a generally preferable option but is not an absolute
ideal. Jaina scriptures have condemned Sri Kr^shna to hell because he
was instrumental in Arjuna's taking up violence. Vedic tradition does
not go to that extreme. There are legitimate occasions when violence
is dharma.

> I have heard some modern scholars and saints talk that the hindu scriptures were tampered with during the Mughal period with the intention of giving predominence to muslim customs and make the hindus of the time weak and accept the islam religion.  It is said that many of the Upanishads have
> been lost for ever. How do we assure that the Vedas we have now are as it was in the origin and has not been tampered with?

A very large part of our tradition comes orally and there is little
scope for tampering of those. Some part of vedas have been lost in the
process, but can we argue anything for or against on the basis of lost
portions? There are no doubt certain works of doubtful authenticity
and therefore let the scholars debate upon them. Meanwhile you and I
need not wait for all the clarifications to come since a very large
undisputed vedic knowledge is still available for us to work upon.

> Could Buddhism have been a preclude to Advaita which rouse to prominence after Buddha's time ? How about this stream of thought :-
> Buddhism was a revivalist movement that came about to remove some the malpractices and misconceptions prevalent at that time in India. Evils such as rampant sacrificies for material gains, casteism, untouchability etc were prime at that time and it required a cultural shock to shake up the people. The common man had nowhere to turn to as they were kept away from true knowledge by the elite class. Buddha mainly had the welfare of the common folk (the man on the street) in mind and wanted to elevate him to the next level of evolution without confusing him with lots of rules and regulations.

That buddhism has its own utility has never been in doubt. People have
different emotional needs when they turn to spirituality. We will be
poorer as a whole if there were only one tradition with one prophet.
Buddhism has served well for the spiritual needs of millions of people
and that itself speaks for its utility.

praNAm