[Advaita-l] vedic yajna

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Shri Vidyasankarji is so right, when he says 

Quote
However, if you think that the SishTAcAra fundamentally modifies 

what is said in Sruti, you are totally mistaken.

Unquote

One, who violates the injunctions of the Shruti,  is not a Sista at all. So 

one cannot pit Shistachara against the Shruti. Shistachara has to 

conform to Shruti. The Smritis including the Manu Smriti and the other 

Smritis as well as the other scriptural texts have to be in line with Shruti,
Otherwise they are to be summarily discarded.

Regards,

Sunil KB



________________________________
 From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
To: Advaita List <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] vedic yajna
 

> I want to make a simple point because I also want to end this long
> debate. There is misunderstanding of my point. Sruti describes Brahma

Again and again, we come back to the same difference of perspective.
I understand your point perfectly. However, I am pointing out that you
fundamentally misunderstand the SAstra and its interpretation.

First, please address the internal contradictions in your stance that I
pointed out earlier. Second, you are perfectly right that we have to go
by the advice and conduct of SishTa-s. However, if you think that the
SishTAcAra fundamentally modifies what is said in Sruti, you are totally
mistaken. Please go to the SishTa-s you named earlier and ask them
about it. By definition, a SishTa is one who knows the SAstra really well
in its vast breadth and his AcAra will, by default, be consonant with it.

I did not want to point out yet another contradiction in your stance earlier,
but I will now. You said that the SAnkarabhAshya is not an authority in
terms of the dharma that is to be followed, but only for vedAnta and 
brahma-jnAna. Your reason for this was that SankarAcArya became a
saMnyAsin directly from brahmacaryASrama. You also mentioned the
names of the Ramachandrapura Swamiji and the Sringeri Jagadguru as
contemporary SishTa-s from whom we can learn dhArmika conduct.
Yes, I absolutely agree. So, please go to Sringeri or Ramachandrapura
and ask the Swamji-s if your thinking about dharma and SankarAcArya
and the bhAshya is on the right track. If what they say is not to your
liking, will you claim that because they have never been in a gRhastha
stage, they are authorities only on vedAnta, not on dharma? After all,
you have already said so about Adi SankarAcArya himself!

> Take the example in Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad 6-4-7 it is asking the
> man to strike his wife with a stick or hands if she is not yielding to
> have sex with him to produce a son. He can strike her and make her
> yield to sex desire. Can you follow this Sruti Vakya today? 

If you can get your mind a little bit out of issues relating to sex and 
think about the larger context of dharma, you will realize that this act
too is kAmya. The Sruti is absolutely not saying that a husband should
beat up his wife every time he feels like having sex and she doesn't.
That is an absolutely wrong interpretation here. Rather, the upanishad
is describing an ugly and highly negative situation within a marriage. I
would suggest that you read the bhAshya on this passage too, where
ayaSA = vandhyA. It takes a lot of souring of the marriage if a husband
were to entertain a terrible wish that his wife should be sterile. Anyway,
for this one passage that talks of a really bad situation of what a man
may do with a woman under the sway of kAma, there are thousands
that teach the same man the value of Sama, dama etc. and not to be
a slave to his kAma. It is up to the kartA what course he chooses to
follow. And if he were to go ahead and abuse his wife, thinking that he
is being dhArmika, he also has to think about the negative consequences
to himself. What is the point of desiring that one's son should be a 
trivedi or caturvedi and highly respected in society, if one can't regulate
one's own anger and other desires? This particular passage is not to be
taken lightly at all.

Again, take the entirety into consideration and please, please, if you
are interested in these matters, get a good grounding in fundamental
principles of dharma, SAstra and SishTAcAra. As a kartA, one always
have the choice to do, not to do or to do otherwise. It is in the "doing
otherwise" that you have to worry about whether how you do an act
is in line with dharma or not. In choosing not to do, the problem only
arises in not doing action that is absolutely enjoined. For actions that
are totally kAmya, there is absolutely no loss of dharma if you choose
not to do it. First internalize well the fundamental understanding of 
nitya, naimittika and kAmya karmA, along with the restrictions imposed
by adhikAra, then talk about these matters.

Vidyasankar
                                            
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org