[Advaita-l] Brihad Up and Putrakameshti

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

Not really. The Vedas tell us that one has to consider the paroksha meaning too. So  deer-meat or goat-meat may not be what the verse meant if we take the paroksha meaning. The  Ayurveda texts tell us that Rishabha or Arshabha  is a herb (Charak Samhita 1. 4 - 13, Sushruta Samjita 38). So the paroksha meaning of  taking Rishabha could however mean taking a preparation of that herb in place of  veal or beef 


Secondly the alternate meaning of Uksha means the Sun and taking Uksha may mean taking the sunshine to get the Sunshine Vitamin-D, the lack of which may cause the death of the foetus. 


Sunil KB



________________________________
 From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Brihad Up and Putrakameshti
 
Namaste

Clarification-  In Brihadaranyaka 6-4-18 we have to understand the
word Uksha and Rishabha as Deer or Goat Meat only but not as Bull
meat.  This is same as substitution of Bull meat by Goat or Deer meat.
Following Sistachara also even the Goat or Deer meat is prohibited in
Brahmins in the South. Conclusion - If a man wants to follow 6-4-18
today he must not use Beef because it is prohibited.

This is the last response from me.

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Namaste Sri Vidyasankara
>
> This is my last response on this kindly excuse me. I got one final
> reference from my friend to prove both you and Sri Saxena are totally
> wrongly interpreting Adi Sankara and Sureshwara also.
> Kindly see the Dvivedaganga Dipika of Bruhadaranyaka 6-4-18. He is
> saying clearly-
> अयं तु मांसनियमो देशकालविशेषापेक्षया अवगन्तव्यः गोमांसस्य
> निषिद्धत्वात् कृष्णमृगविषयं छागविषयं वा उक्षादिवचनमत्र ग्राह्यम् He is
> saying this Bull meat eating rule of 6-4-18 must be understood
> depending on Desha Place and Kala Time. Because Beef is prohibited
> meat we have to take Uksha and Rishabha in 6-4-18 as Black Deer or
> Goat Meat.
> तन्मांसमपि अनुपहृतं क्रीत्वा संपाद्यं हिंसायाः प्रतिषिद्धत्वात् He is
> saying even that Black Deer Meat or Goat Meat  he must get by
> purchasing but not killing the animal because killing  is prohibited.
>
> This is the correct interpretation for 6-4-18 and Adi Sankara Bhashya
> and Vartika also.  It is  unfortunate both of you miss the point by
> twisting the texts. Others like Sri Bhaskar and Sri Sarma are blindly
> following your side.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan
> <svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sri Venkatesh Murthy,
>>
>> Since Sri Subhanu has posted relevant excerpts from the vArttika and some dharma-
>> SAstra texts, and as I can see that you have completely misunderstood it, yet again, I
>> am going to write one last response. The only reason for me to respond is to explain
>> how the interpretation is done. I have tried to explain the principles to you multiple times
>> before and I see that it is not going anywhere. I am going to ask that as you read this
>> response, please keep the upanishad text in front of you, and if possible the bhAshya
>> also. Forget about all the other references to cows, bulls, beef, yajna, substitutions, etc
>> from all other sources and focus on only the upanishad and commentaries for now.
>>
>> Finally, as a moderator of this list, I ask that you let the matter rest after reading this
>> response. Please do NOT respond again and reiterate your opinions. The chance that
>> you have something new to say is almost zero, so please do not tax the patience of the
>> list members.
>>
>>
>>> in these texts. Surprisingly Suresvara gives some detail in the ritual in his
>>> vartikas in BUBV 6.4 on the Upanishad sections 6.4.18 etc. With regards to the
>>> question re meat and rice grains, he writes:
>>>
>>> taṇḍulān māmsa-sam-mishrān paktvā māmsaudanam viduḥ।
>>> ukṣā sechana-shakto gauḥ sa eva riṣabho mahān ॥ [BUBV 6.4.77]
>>
>> This is a straightforward explanation of the upanishad reference to mAMsaudanam and
>> the SAnkara-bhAshya explanation of the words ukshA and Rshabha.
>>
>>> He then goes on to clarify:
>>>
>>> Prasiddhy-asambhavāt tvadya hyuktam māmsaudanam prati ।
>>> Māmsam kriṣṇa-mrigacchāgaviṣayam tvadya kurvate ॥ [BUBV 6.4.78]
>>>
>>> This is mentioned here with reference to meat-rice, since it is not accepted today
>>> They now take meat to refer to that of a black deer or goat
>>
>> Please read the upanishad + bhAshya and then try to understand what is being said
>> here by sureSvarAcArya. The first reference in the upanishad passage simply says
>> "mAMsaudanam". The passage ends with a further specification that the mAMsa in
>> question is from an ukshA or a Rshabha. SrI sureSvarAcArya is explaning that in
>> general, people do not automatically take mAMsa to mean the meat of ox/bull and
>> instead understand it as meat of black deer or goat. Therefore, since there is no
>> "prasiddhi" that mAMsa is the meat of young ox or mature bull, the upanishad
>> makes a further specification with respect to the "mAMsaudanam" and says that
>> the mAMsa should be that of ukshA or Rshabha.
>>
>> Far from endorsing your stance that goat meat is to be substituted by north Indians
>> and completeley avoided by south Indians (on what basis you get to make that totally
>> arbitrary decision, God alone knows), what the vArttika-kAra is saying is the exact
>> opposite. Because people generally think mAMsa = goat meat or deer meat, the
>> upanishad is specifying additionally that when it says mAMsa, it is talking of ukshA
>> and Rshabha, not of kRShNa-mRga or cchaga.
>>
>> It is like this. Suppose one sees a description of a procedure that calls for milk and
>> then specifies that it should be camel milk. When you first see the word "milk" you
>> think of "cow milk", because that is the prasiddhi. The next part of the passage that
>> says "camel" then gives you an additional specification. This tells you to set aside
>> what you know as the general prasiddhi because that is not applicable here, and
>> instead to use camel milk specifically. There is no prasiddhi about goat milk, so a
>> specific reference becomes necessary. The situation here is similar and all that the
>> vArttika is doing is providing an explanation for the order in which things are specified
>> in the source text, the bRhadAraNyaka upanishad. That is all there is to it. There is
>> absolutely no basis for thinking that sureSvarAcArya is talking about substituting goat
>> or deer here in this particular case.
>>
>> Let me reiterate, both as one who is tired of talking to a seemingly deaf man and
>> as a moderator of the list - drop the subject here and move on. Try to understand,
>> if at all possible, at an intellectual level, what the upanishad says and how the rules
>> of interpretation are being applied by SankarAcArya and sureSvarAcArya. If not,
>> make sure that you have something new to say before sending yet another missive
>> to the list. If you have something to ask/say about the thousand other issues more
>> relevant to advaita vedAnta, do so, but do not beat this dead horse. (or should I
>> say bull? ...)
>>
>>> In BUBV 6.4.79-80 he then clarifies that the meat should be
>>> bought, as killing is prohibited for the yajamana, and he should not kill the
>>> animal himself. He clarifies the use of atha in 6.4.19 has the sense of an
>>> option amongst meats, according to one’s choice. He then explains the sthālīpāka
>>> etc as well as a detailed description of lovemaking (not bad for a sannyasi).
>>> If you have access, I would suggest you read all of BUBV 6.4 to give the full
>>> context
>>
>> The rest of this response is a brief comment to Sri Subhanu. Is the explanation of
>> atha in 6.4.19 only about the two options for meat in 6.4.18? It would seem more
>> apt if "atha" were to apply generally to all five choices outlined in 6.4.14 to 6.4.18.
>> The sense would be that whether the couple has had odanam along with milk or
>> curd or water or sesame or meat, as per a particular desire for the kind of child,
>> the sthAlIpAka is to be done.
>>
>> As for the detailed description of lovemaking, for one thing, the upanishad itself is
>> quite explicit and treats of it as one would treat any normal human function. The
>> bhAshya also gives a fairly detailed explanation of the upanishad, instead of staying
>> silent on this passage. Moreover, sureSvara is reputed to have been a gRhastha
>> before becoming a saMnyAsin. I am not particularly talking of the maNDana miSra
>> - sureSvara equation, nor of the references to other names in the Sankaravijaya
>> literature. Rather, I have in mind the numerous references in later works to the
>> name of the vArttika-kAra as sureSvara and as viSvarUpa. There is a commentary
>> on the yAjnavalkya-smRti, called bAlakrIDA, written by one viSvarUpa and some
>> recent scholars have postulated that this author is the same as sureSvarAcArya.
>>
>> Regards,
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh
_______________________________________________
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