kAmya karmas (was Re: [Advaita-l] Animal sacrifice)

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

On 1/9/06, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:
>
> >
> > No. That's not what I am talking about. That's quite different. I
> > don't remember the verses offhand. I'll have to hunt for them. But I
> > believe it's the sambandha vaartika where the kaamavilayavaada is also
> > refuted (in some other place). The topic under discussion is what is
> > the connection between the puurva and uttara bhaagams of the shruti,
> > which has no connection with kaamavilayavaada.  Sureshvara also refers
> > to the fact that Sankara takes this topic up for discussion in a later
> > part of the bhaashya (which is only obliquely refererred to in the
> > upodghaata).  Will post when I get the chance.
> >
>
> Please do.  After doing a little research I noticed these shlokas in
> the varttika which are perhaps what you are referring to?

[ ... ]

These were not the exact verses I was thinking of. You have to kind of
read what I said into those verses. Here are the ones I was thinking
about:

veda.h hi sarva.h eva-ayam-aikaatmya-j~naana-siddhaye |
ata.h na-anya.h sambandha.h karma-vij~naana-kaaNDayo.h || 325

The entire veda is only for gaining  knoweldge of the one, immediate
self. Thus, there is no other relation ship between the ritual and
knowledge sections.

Here the puurvapaxin objects:

nitya-namittikani iha kartR^i-sa.mskaarata.h yata.h |
na-anyatra paryavasyanti j~naanat-aikaatmya-gocaraat || 326

The obligatory (nitya) and occasional (naimittika) which purify the
doer, conclude nowhere other than taking (the doer) to knoweldge of
the unity of the self.

plava hi ete priixyeti tathaa tadya iha, iti ca |
nindaashrute.h na kaamyaanaa.m kaaryataa adhyavasiiyate || 327

>From the texts which condemn (optional  rites), such as "These are
transient", "Thus he examined", "they, like those in this world", it
is detemined that optional (kaamya) rites should not be performed.

Sureshvara answers:

vidhi-nindaa-samaavesha.h na evam api upapadyate |
phala-abhisandhi-maatre tu nindaayam eva yujyate || 328

Coexistence of injunction (vidhi) and condemnation (nindaa) can never
happen. The condemning texts make sense only when they refer to the
(desire for the ) fruit

It actually is good to read the previous 10 and next 10 passages to
get a better idea of the context. But I don't have the time right now.

1. Re-reading my mail, after reading Jaldhars good comments, I
realized that I should not have said "Optional rites should not be
given up". I should have instead said "Optional rites need not be
given up". ***But certainly the theory that one should give up
optional rites does not hold water***.

2. As per aapastamba, 40 samskaaras have to be performed during the
life time. This includes doing soma-yaaga at least once, which
involves sacrifice of animals. So, it's not necessary that animal
sacrifice is only in "kaamya" rites. It is possible that other R^ishis
may have different samskaaras which do not involve sacrifice of
animals. But I seriously doubt this.

3. "Optional rites" are more or less a necessity for most of us. A
Ganapati homam,  ekaadasha rudram, or chaNDii homam are all optional.
But can we say that they do not help most of us? We can certainly do a
gaNapati homam without any desires, just with the thought of pleasing
gaNesha. If anyone is advanced enough to meditate without any problem
oGanesha, they of course have no need for these "optional" rites. But
for most of us, a karma greatly helps fix the thought on
gaNesha.That's the fact of life.

4. Most optional rites specify the results done with desire and
results done without desire. By "without desire", I mean the lack of
desire for those results. If there weren't basic desire, we would be
j~naanis! For example, the aruNaketuka yaj~nam can bring prosperity,
long life, etc. But, without those desires, one attains saayujya with
suurya bhagavaan.

Sri Sanjay wrote:

"I remember visiting vindhyavAsini temple in Mirzapur in my childhood
days. That time animal sacrifice was done in the open in temple
premises. (I think it is now banned by government). Our priest - a
very learned vedic scholar and through and through no-garlic-onion
vegetarian would dip his little finger in the blood and put it at the
tip of his tongue as devI's prasAda. It would seem that people have"

My comments: Obviously he's a wise man. Unfortunately our government
officials do not think about the thousands of animals slaughtered
during bakrid, but are always out to "help" Hindus become "civilized".

Sri Venkat Subramanian wrote:

"  Appaiya Diksita too takes a similar view, if i remember correct."

Thanks for this info. Do you remember where he mentions this? Thanks!

Rama