unity in diversity

The glory of Hinduism, and the reason for the criticism it receives at the same time, is the apparent contradictions about paths we have to tread.

The keen observer and the realist seeker says that life and incidents therein  are regualted or happen only by the operation of the theory of Karma- the strict rule that good begets good and evil leads to more evil.

However, the romantic visionary of the Bhakthi Yoga would say that when one just merges himself with the Supreme, offering to the Lord all the good and bad, then the results of Karma get burned out and the seeker becomes supremely happy.- and emancipated..

And there are many schools of thoughts and philosophy in Hinduism that are nearer to Karma or Bhakthi

Some Religions go to great extents to patch up such heterodoxy.  But Hinduism does not mind that contradiction at all.

In fact, Hinduism just thrives on such a wide-spectrum of philosophy

Something like a big buffet dinner hall where myriad varieties of food are served..

Every guest can fill his plates with foods and condiments that appeal to his palate..

But he will not  and need not  question why the man sitting near him has partiality for a different sort of food..

to wear thripundraka bhasmam

if you have to wear thripundraka bhasmam (pasted holy ashes in three parallel and horizontal strands) in the evening, you have to take a bath.. or something equivalent to bath.(there are many substituted rituals equivaltent to bath.. but a strightforward bath in a riverside, pond on under a shower is the best). and for performing sayam sandhya full bhasmadharanam( wearing of holy ashes ritualistically) is a must for smarthas..

(Of course I have read some texts where it is prescribed that ashes should not be soaked in water if they are worn in the evening..

But as a shistacharam, I have seen most bramins in Palakkad wearing holy ashes soaked in water too.. in the evening... provided they take bath..

Of course, there cannot be any hard and fast prescription for this in Vedas or major Smritis.. It comes rather by tradition)

Dont know what vaishnavism prescribes about sreechurnam and gopi.. that is their secret.. I am an out and out shaivite..

We have now forgotten performing maadhyahnikam..

If we are doing madhyahnikam, sastras prescribe a bath just before midday and then also vibhuthi has to be worn in detail

Sure, vibhuti pattai(or smear of holy ashes made into a semisolid paste) is to be worn all over the body, at least on selected sixteen on eighteen places on the body.. and not only on the forehead..

the vibhoothi lines should never be crossed with any other pottus (other tilaks or marks) or ornamentation like sandal paste, kumkumam etc..

The rules are elaborate and strict.. , this Pattai with viboothi is a very serious affair..

Acts of omission or disrespect of the holy ashes will enrage the killer of killer Lord Shiva and you can guess what can happen..

But the rules are even more strict for pure Shaivas.. like Sivacharyas, Gurukkal etc, who perform poojas in our Shiva temples..

Among Lingayattas, men and ladies too wear thripundrakam and also wear Shivalinga in their upper body..

Thripundrakam is not usually prescribed for our smartha ladies .. although some old paattis(grandmas) wear it that way as per local customs..

Especially elderly widows who have been initiated to Panchaksharam sometimes wear thripundra..

In fact they can wear only dry holy ash in a single line.

That practice of wearing elaborate marks with ashes mixed in water may be right for the old ladies according to the custom , but our smrithis do not prescribe it.. It is again a tradition.

various stages in philosophical thoughts

 

From cause-effect based philosophy of karma the idea of escape from the repeated cycles of pleasure and woe arose.

We call this escape Moksham.

Learned sadhakas opine that we could attain such Moksham through the paths of Karma (performing the duty ideally) jnana and /or bhakti.

Yes, we are virtually helpless according to the karma theory.

Then we can gain an escape velocity or momentum and jump away to liberation.

However such escape and Moksham are exceptional and only through a lot of extraordinary efforts alone we can attain that.

Therefore, the ordinary human being is tied hands and feet by karma.

Moreover, the knots are difficult to break

Of course, some knowledgeable sadhakas accept and acknowledge the intervention of God in this process and the degree of intervention varies there too according their philosophies.

In addition, when we start considering nyaya vaisheshika and Samkhya philosophies, which are integral parts of Hinduism we will find that cause and effect bind human existence. In addition, divine correction and interference are too rare, maybe almost nil.

Then terse and logic-bound thoughts give rise to uneasiness and we veered towards the idea of a divinity kind and forgiving on the condition of strict faithfulness and perhaps even servitude.

Ultimately, Hinduism can accept various levels of enlightenment according to the predilections of the individual adherent.

Srirudram and Purusha Sooktham

 

In fact, in Sri Rudra or Satarudriyam found in Krishna and Shukla Yajurveda too, the Lord in the form of Rudra and his eleven forms is worshipped as present as the vital force or or the leader or leading force in all that is found manifest.

In the eleven anuvakas of Sri Rudra, we praise the Rudras are as present in the vanguard of all that is seen in various individual large and small and even tiny and animate and inanimate manifestations on the surface of earth and elsewhere

In contrast, the purushasooktham first found in Rigveda presents the Supreme Being as gross manifestation in everything.

Worship of God perhaps is just a formality for a jnaani

 

Worship of God perhaps is just a formality. A temple or stotras or a Vedic hymn is just symbolic. Shankara would even say the whole jagat is illusion.

However, that comes only to a perfect jnaani. We can rarely find such a jnaani. Gita talks of the insignificant status of a tiny puddle of water when the whole place is flooded. Then that stage of realization comes only to the most evolved souls. We are all too far away from that state.

Even saying a good morning to a colleague or a boss is an empty action. However, no one normally skips that.

Eating and sleeping alone can satisfy the completely ignorant and contemplating on the Brahmam alone can engage a jeevanmuktha completely. However, we are all somewhere in the middle of the spectrum

I am not trying to argue. I just wanted to submit we are living in a far from perfect state of physical and mental existence. Our views and ideas can vary with individuals and again the ideas can vary even in the case of the same individual along with time. God is perfect but the mind that perceives Him cannot reach perfection. That perhaps is the cause of all heterodoxy.

we have to be grateful to our Maker

 

If you believe in Hinduism, you have to accept the basic precept that we are born with at least three debts pitru deva and manava or bhutha. We cannot deny our indebtedness there and so the concept that we need not be thankful cannot be fully right. We enjoy the products of earth we breathe the air and is it that we need not be thankful because we did not ask for air etc?

We cannot simply live even a moment without divine mercy and help from others. We cannot ignore that fact simply saying that we did not ask for it.

Moreover, the pricing system in nature is so unbalanced. We can never give back in equal quantity the real value of anything or any favour we have received.

A benefit is a benefit whether we get it by asking for it or have received it free.

As for reporting --we have to appreciate that even though a government or a higher authority can often learn about the developments below them still they demand reports and feedbacks. The same ratio might apply in respect of our transactions with the Maker too.

If we are attempting to reach a stage where we need not thank God then we either are playing god or we are just atheists.

In the case of an atheist, the very concept of god is irrelevant.

We chant Gayatri and worship Sandhya three times a day because it we feel that our energy level is waning and our batteries call for constant recharging.

Even sannyasins have to offer worship of Sandhya even when they have no attachments in life.

I am not able to agree to the idea that we need not be thankful to God because he is sustaining us even if we do not ask for it.

A newborn child does not ask its mother to look after it. Is that a reason that when he grows up he need not be thankful to the mother?

the four stages

 

The traditional Hindu belief somehow is that life has four parts-brahmacharyam, garhastyam, Vanaprastham, and sannyaasam. Brahmacharyam-the early youth is to equip and train oneself and perhaps to aim and dream too- garhastyam,to plan, dream further and implement and find contentment too-Vanaprastham, to adjourn to simple essential need-based life, controlling the yearning of the body and developing more equanimity and equipping for departure-and Sannyaasam,where a person has given up all in life,and lives as ifhe is not in this world.

This is a unique prescription of Indian philosophy- and the traditional way of life..

We have stretched and given up the ideas too. And there may be an exception, who discoveres himself even after being a recluse and there are episodes of return from Sannyasa or Vanaprasta to Grihasta ashramam and so on.

Of course, there is no bar in dreaming and dying while dreaming too

Maybe my ideas as influenced by the traditions.

you have to earn your moksham during your lifetime

 

After the study of Vedic practices, and related lore too, I tend to feel that Hinduism restricts obtaining results like Moksham through prayers for the living beings alone, that too during their span of life.

And in most cases, as a pretham, pitru or some spirit, the dead person reaches a state where he or she is a sort of deva or some such being, to whom we pray.

Even in Shraddha or aparakriya mantrams, we are usually praying to the respective spirits and the accompanying Vishvedevas and the protector of Shraddha the Vishnu.

This being the case, I doubt whether anyone can pray for the dead.

If we are seeking moksha the person after his death, dead, we could attain that moksha when the life is about to leave the human body, that too, following the theory of Karma.

We have to infer that if we do not attain emancipation by the time of death, the soul or jiva has to assume another body, wear out the Karma and once again attempt to attain moksha.

Therefore, the prayer if any for Moksha seems to be possible only before death, that too preferably by the person who is inheriting the Karma..

Of course, we comprehend Hindu ethos often in a hotchpotch manner and some swami or Periyavaal may hold a different view too.

However, this is what I could understand after all these years of study.

𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐇𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐦

 

P𝐞𝐫𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐇𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞..

𝐎𝐦 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐇 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐇

𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐝𝐬 .

𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐚 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥.

Also 𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 living entity..𝐚𝐚𝐝𝐡𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐚𝐝𝐡𝐢 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐤𝐚, 𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐝𝐡𝐢𝐛𝐡𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐤𝐚..𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐚𝐝𝐡𝐲𝐚𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐤𝐚 .

𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐛𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞.

discussion on some brahmin rituals and their complexities

 

The discussion starts with the issue as to how many Darbhas we should use as Asanam pavitram and so on while performing rituals. Incidentally, many other connected issues are also covered. I am giving below the relevant portions contained in my answers

The usual number of two darbhas two is the minimum. For devakaryams and Shubhakaryams the number should be even or multiples of two and for pitrukaryams it is three. That is all

Therefore, dwivachanam is not too relevant or mandatory everywhere. If you are particular, you can use dwivachanam when you use just two darbhas. Karakas we follow are not having the force of any Vedic mantram

Pavitram and darbhas we should use for pitrukaryams is three. However, for Shubhakaryam we use even number conventionally

For example, for Avaniavittam or upakarmam the vadhyar will give darbhas, Asanam and pavitram with two strands. However for pitru Tarpanam, the number will be three.. The two is minimum. In some cases and if we choose we can use darbhas for good purpose in multiples of two. This is a very basic idea. The person who made the query is asking about a grammar issue. Why are we using bahuvachanam instead of dwivachanam. The only answer could be that people were not stingy about dharba, and they used multiple pair strands for Shubhakaryam.

Also, for pretakaryam they use single strand pavitram..

in fact the subject is so wide. I have before me some ten or twelve standard texts. Including all the famous commentators.. Each book in Sanskrit, with commentary too in Sanskrit would run on average to eight hundred pages. Some books are in Grantham script too. What I discover from the explanations given by some commentators is that they have considered the pramanams only partially and they have not attempted to explain possible contradictions elsewhere in the same txt or elsewhere.. And in each text we would find some comments would be the compilation of opinions of a large number of rishis, and each one may differ with others even on minor issues. For example, there is a lot of dispute as to whether we can place Tulasi on the right ear of a dead body. While some authorities take the view that it is a sacred act, some say it is desecration of the divine plant.. The disputes will go on and on, even on minor matters.

However, on major issues, if we follow the Sutram prescribed for the Sakha, we will get a consensus.

What I want to state is that i could cover only ten to fifteen pages of Sanskrit in a few hours on a day, and usually I try to find answers by poring over the subject on the issue raised. In addition, there is a risk in that. Some other portion of the text in a different context would give a different interpretation altogether. Therefore, our clarifications can be done on the basis of only specific parameters.. God knows whether it is within my reach. A professional priest or an upanyasakara cannot do that because his interest is more in dishing out what he knows and he has little time for study. He has to eke out a livelihood too.

A typical example. Some commentators would say that a Sraddham done on black Thrayodashi would affect the longevity of the kartha, his eldest son, or wife.. Nevertheless, if the thithi of the father or mother falls on that day he has to perform Sraddham without fail. No smriti allows any exception. And at the same time the Thrayodashi in Mahalayapaksham is considered Gajachaya punya alam and many treat it as the holiest period for doing Sraddham..

They perform the Sraddham for many purposes on Chaturdashi for accidental deaths, death of fallen people, and or death in war, as a result of murder etc., and that Sraddham according to some can be done only as Ekodishtam, something like the Sraddham on the eleventh day of death for pretham. But if that thithi happens to be the date of death, of a parent, then there is no escape, though the action can be visited with doshas and papas.

Moreover, in such situations even the sages flounder. How can we talk authoritatively about even such matters

The meanings of marriage ceremonies is another controversy.

In addition, I read somewhere about yan me maathaa pralulopa... etc. Some say it is an absolute insult tow womanhood. But we the apastambhiyas have to give ahuti for mother, paternal grandmother, paternal great grandmother and their spouses chanting that mantram only. Often ignorance seems to be blissful.

For pitru Tarpanam the number of darbhas is three. No two views about it.. But I have seen loukeeka, vaideeka people who become ad-hoc priests for Tarpanam alone just uniformly distributing pavitram of two strands.. Koorcham of two strands etc, which is not permitted.

The major smritis, including the Yajnavalkya underline the importance of elderly ladies, mother, grandmothers, aunts and elder sisters whose views are to be considered when there are certain unique rituals or practices, not of the mainstream type, as and not opposed to Vedas, are practiced by the family or the groups in the locality.. Even the aathu Vadhyar would ask us to consult the elderly women before taking such decisions. Alas, now we are left with a generation of elderly women too who can do precious little. Anyway, many such women have a tendency to bluff rather than pleading ignorance. Male or female, vaideeka, pandita or loukeeka should give opinions only after considering the precedents. Brahmins were valued because even at the risk of their lives they would not lie or mislead. However, can we claim that credit now?

I do not confine myself to Subhashitams. Actually I was trying to give my views to members in many exclusive groups who are not conscious of the sacredness of the issue. And when we discuss serious points, they make slapstick comments.. Even elderly and otherwise sensible Iyers and pattars are experts in trivializing the issues.. I am helpless.

Other subject is Sanskrit literature. There too, the standard of discussion is below decent standards. In addition, the genuinely learned gurus do not participate at all.

Of course, I am trying to create a parallel archive. Also, I am trying to record and jot down notes on all issues I come across in such matters.

But I am always careful not to enter any discussion on law, taxation and politics. The first two are my professional wealth.

Smriti mukthaaphalam of Vaidyanatha Deekshita is neither samkshepam nor wide. In a total of 1500 pages or so in Sanskrit, it gives almost all explanations we need. And each statement in that treatise is backed up by a lot of references, which can lead us to other wider texts. On issues covered more instances from Puranas and local stories and numerous conflicting smritis are given as illustration and they are not quoted from Shruti or Vedas.. Therefore, I can understand the problem.

However, today we lack interested scholars who could spend time explaining things, and self-study is nearly impossible.

The texts of Hemadri, madhaveeyam smritichandrika nirnayasindhu dharmasindhu and many other books in Sanskrit are available in the web. Most of the dharma sootras and grihya sootras too, are available for download, but all the texts are available in either Devanagari or Granthalipi. Now data is not the issue. Reading and understanding is quite a serious challenge.

In religion, what would work for me is good for me

There is one enigma..

We just assume some persons who suffer deserve better treatment by God.

However, is our evaluation of such poor and helpless factual?

Perhaps those who are suffering are in such an abysmal state, and perhaps God is propping them up with all His mercy.

Perhaps, if His help were not there, the sufferers would have been in a much worse state.

We can make a judgement about God only if we really have a measure of the mess the so-called deserving persons have created for themselves by accumulating so much of toxin in themselves.

We are trying to measure God; we either praising or berating Him, based on what is apparent to our eyes.

Our vision can be limited, our exposure to the targets of God's help or lack of it is limited. In short, our judgment cannot be error free for so many reasons.

Therefore we do not have adequate data to judge that God, if such a God is there, is lacking in Mercy for His creations, or that God is not fair to all..

Moreover, when fate closes every other door, if it opens the door of Faith, even if it is virtual or illusory, if it can just sustain our sanity, why should we not have such faith?

If one can depend on intoxicating drinks to maintain sanity in worst cases, if people use even opium and morphine to relieve excruciating pain in terminal cases, is there really anything wrong in having some faith too, if such faith can remove some pain?

We really do not know about others and their thoughts and action, we just do not know---

Even our closest associates and relatives are strangers to us in many ways.

So how do we judge their private virtues and sins and consequently judge God’s action in either granting rewards or meting out punishments?

In religion, what would work for me is good for me... We cannot compare or exchange notes in this matter.

problem arises when we try to mix up the paths

Hindu faith and philosophy are multi dimensional.

Various thought leaders have given their own theories.

The proponents of bhakthti etc would canvas the idea that there can be approach to god and moksham even without rituals.

But the sticklers to rituals and vedic rites would say that their path is the right one.

It is a multiplicity of ideas.

The problem arises when we try to mix up these paths.

If you are travelling by an aircraft you cannot suddenly jump into a train and continue the journey .

But you can travel and reach the destination by sticking on either to aircraft or train.

Most of the religious ideas are just indicators of some particular path.

We have to realize that destination alone is important.

People fight in futility over modalities and lose sight of the destination.

Study of alphabets is important but such study will hardly fetch us doctorates

a jeeva has to face the consequences of his actions and burn out the karma

The following view was canvassed by a Hindu friend.

God is our father and mother. So he will not expect us to face difficult rituals and observances an He will not mind even if we deviate from prescribed methods because after all He is our father and mother.

I could not agree with this idea because our ordinary life is governed by the law of karma and God would not agree to actions against normal order and still help us.

The result was an unwanted enmity as usual.

My views

I am not questioning the devotion or sincerity or attachment to God by anyone. But we have to understand our Hinduism.

Except when a soul goes for mukthi in which case there is no difference between the individual jeevaatma and the supreme soul paramatma which is envisaged in upanishads and Vedanta the Hinduism is just built on the theory of karma.

Here a jeeva has to face the consequences of his actions and burn out the karma.

The various rituals and observances are meant to facilitate the person bound by karma to burn out such karma. In this matter god is just an umpire or an accountant.

He cannot give anyone any concession.

If a fellow has committed murder and the father is running the trial as a judge can the judge deviate from justice?

In human court cases even the supreme court has multiple benches.

So the judge who is the father too will transfer the case to someone else.

But God is the single supreme judge.

He cannot transfer the cases.

So he has to deliver justice whoever is the accused..

The parental analogy and mercy and such considerations do not hold fort there.

So in such karmic situations it is not correct to presume that the rules can be broken just because the God is a parent.

This is normal Hindu philosophy.

The sharanaagathi tatwa of vaishnavism vishistaadvaita or dwaita too make the individual a servant of God and not children.

In Hinduism claiming that we are children of God is just symbolism..

And such concept is alien to the religion as such.

. And evn if we agree that God is a father then he is a strict father.

If the karma of the child deems it fit that the assumed child should suffer the God would not grant condonation.

Krishna was as good as a parent to abhimanyu

Still Krishna watched the child murdered in silence.

To feel that God is a parent and therefore he will not mind deviations in scriptural dictates is a fallacious notion.

If a fellow is sick or in some conditions where he could not observe the rules then the scriptures themselves prescribe exceptions.

One need not refer the issue to God then.

It is just fallacious to assume that vedanta or bhakthi and ritualism and other tenets can be mixed up and a hybrid Hinduism can be followed.

Such hybridization can come even out of utter devotion but as a well structured religion with many well defined strata such mixing up is not right.

This is by way of interpretation of a great religion.

Of course any individual can have his own way with God..

But then that is between the individual and the unknown divine..

And if the method deviated from standard tenets of Hinduism..It is devoutness alright but not devout Hinduism of any type.

The difference should be understood.

One can refuse to do pooja but if one is doing pooja it has to be according to standard practices..

many practices are prescribed by the scriptures and traditions.

But it is not given to the individual to create any rules.

svasti na indro vrṛddhaśravāḥ svasti na pūṣā viśvavedāḥ|

स्वस्ति न इन्द्रो व्रृद्धश्रवाः स्वस्ति न पूषा विश्ववेदाः।

स्वस्ति न तार्क्ष्यो अरिष्टनेमिः स्वस्ति नो बृहस्पतिर्ददातु॥

svasti na indro vrṛddhaśravāḥ svasti na pūṣā viśvavedāḥ|

svasti na tārkṣyo ariṣṭanemiḥ svasti no bṛhaspatirdadātu || svasti na indro vrṛddhaśravāḥ svasti na pūṣā viśvavedāḥ|

svasti na tārkṣyo ariṣṭanemiḥ svasti no bṛhspatirda dātu ||

व्रृद्धश्रवाः इन्द्रो नः स्वस्ति ददातु I May Indra of long- enduring renown bestow on us welfare.

विश्ववेदाः पूषा नः स्वस्ति ददातु I May Pushaa who is renowned all over the world and who knows all bestow on us welfare

अरिष्टनेमिः तार्क्ष्यो नः स्वस्ति ददातु I May Taarkshya the destroyer of enemies and evil bestow on us welfare

बृहस्पतिः नः स्वस्ति ददातु I May Brihaspathi bestow on us welfare..

Indra is the leader of Gods.. Pushaa is a god arrayed with the Sun.. Taarksya is the divine bird.. possibly the Garuda ..Brihaspathi is Guru, the preceptor of Gods..

May Indra of long- enduring renown bestow on us welfare.

May Pushaa who is renowned all over the world and who knows all bestow on us welfare

May Taarkshya the destroyer of enemies and evil bestow on us welfare

May Brihaspathi bestow on us welfare..

The above vedic mantra is a benediction for all invoking the great and powerful Gods..

It is chanted at the commencement of some rituals .. and it is also the opening mantram of some Upanishads..

Brahmins were great survivors..

in Vedic HInduism, yajnam and yagas through which offerings were made by the hotas,ritviks. advaryus etc (class of brahmin priests) to the fire after symbolically invoking the presence of gods in fire was the mode of worship..

Natural forces or symbols of them

like Indra for thunderbolt,

vayu for air,

pooshan etc for Sun,

maruts, rudras and so on were the vedic deities..

Brahma or prajapathi also was a Vedic god who presided over yagas and took share in the offerings..

One distinctive feature of that time was that there were no invoking of gods in statues, idols etc... and there were no temples..

The vedic gods of subordinate importance during the early Vedic period like Shiva and Vishnu ( shiva in the shape of Rudras) caught the fancy of not only the brahmins but of other sects too at a later period

.. and the worship in forms and shapes in abodes specially built for such worship(temples) started....essentially based on the texts of later origin namely agamas..some tantric texts also ran parallel..

Of course no established practice ever can be completely given up, and therefore to maintain continuity, the Vedic Mantras and some rituals too got included in temple worship .. but in temple rituals offer or oblations to fire was of secondary importance..

When temple worship came into vogue in Hinduism, Vishnu, Shiva, Amba.. and perhaps Ganapathy too had gained ascendancy and the gods like Indra and Vayu were just confined to the allegiance of Vedic brahmins.. and in yagas which happened once in a while.

In this process, no temples are seen for some of the prominent Vedic deities like Indra, Vayu, etc..

In fact, building of temples and worship of idols was viewed as of secondary or inferior priority by the traditional brahmins..

But they had to survive, and jumped in with the majority and adroitly took over the poojas etc too..

Brahmins were great survivors..

Hinduism is a multifaceted way of life

It is not my intention to pass judgment as to whether vedic practices or idol worship or any other methods of Hinduism are superior to other methods..

Hinduism is a multifaceted way of life which has place for many types of worship and faith.

But people who are votaries of one path tend to be antagonistic to other paths and they either scoff or insult other methods.. Some even tend to try to destroy other methods.

This situation often gets extended to many different groups in Hinduism to wide the spectrum of huge number of religions and faiths professed by humanity..

Realization of God, if such realisation is there at all is a matter between the Individual and the Supreme being conveived by him..

Subjecting people to forcible faith is not going to help anyone..

I can say I love and follow my method..

But I have not business to say that your faith or method is not right..

Jainism and Budhisam and their influence on the evolution of HInduism

I was reading a detailed analysis of Jainism and Budhisam and their influence on the evolution of HInduism..

In fact, if we analyze in depth it will be seen that ahimsa in terms complete abstinence from causing harm to any living being or to a great extent even to non living things was stressed more in Jainism..

And Buddhism was in fact more relevant at the time of its predominance as an instrument of social change as it made successful forays fighting against the traditional ritualistic Hinduism which gave a lot of significance to fire oblations and animal sacrifices.. and of course the dominance of the Brahmin caste..

Budhism was Kshatriya oriented, and in fact its objections to sacrifice of animals was, to be frank, more being used as a ploy to prune the wings of the ritualistic brahmin rather than as an article of faith made out of pity or love for the animals killed..

True, Buddhism made the society more free, objective and egalitrian and Bhagavan Buddha deserves all reverence.

And, with due respect for Gandhiji and Mandela, about whom it is claimed that they were influenced by Buddha, my frank view is that their stands of peaceful resistance was a matter of expediency as they were shrewd enough to realize that their political movements did not have the firepower to match the powers they were up in arms against..

True, they either derived strength from the Madhyama Marga or Pantha principles... the middle path or path of reconciliation, from earlier seers or alternately used the names or cited as authority their teachings, to convince and gain authenticity and gain acceptance and legitimacy for their action plans..

Admitted,, we cannot ever fail to praise Buddha for his role as a social reformer, and a rebel against ritualism and elitism..

But it is a tragedy that with the advent of or split up into Mahayana, Heenayana and Vajrayana Schools, the same noble religion disintegrated into ritualism..

You know, all types of Tantric worship and use of flesh, wine and sex as means of spiritual attainment appears with only changes in names and chants, in vajrayana buddhism too

For one who understands this, there can be no schisms, no sectarian fights..

Hindus and Hinduism may seem to canvass the worship of multitude of Gods..

Scriptures may state that there are thirty three crores or more of deities to be worshiped..

And perhaps the followers who are just crossing the learning stage of the religion would even assert that the Deity adored and worshiped by them are more potent, and more authentic and capable of showering more munificent blessings and protection in comparison to other deities..

For them Rama, Krishna, Gowri, Shiva, Ganesha etc are individually superior to other deities..

But those who have moved towards the core of the religion and its true message, clearly understand that the various deities just represent the one and only potent force which represented truth and righteousness.." Ekam Sat VipraaH Bahudhaa Vadanti...एकं सद् विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति...the one and only True being whom the followers called by many names.. "

And the seer, when worshiping some particular facet of that Supreme Being, stressed and even exaggerated for proper effect the potency of that facet.. perhaps as the name of a deity.. and even did not hesitate to declare that it was superior to anything else.. Thus Savita or Sun was declared as the most potent.. Varuna of Seagod also received the same treatment.. Indra, Yama, Vayu, Agni, were all declared as superlative beings in contradistinction to other personified deities,

There may be an apparent contradiction..

But think of a logic which says A is better than B and C and all others.. It is also said that B is better that A and C and all other.. C is also similar..

All these statements can be logically made without contradiction only if we conclude that A, B and C are all the same..

Of course in the same unit one part may be superior to others to enable effective operation as a unit in Sync..

This unit is what is called verily as Brahma, Paramatma etc..

This appears to be the crux of the spirit of the apparently polytheist but substantially monolithic religion called Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism..

For one who understands this, there can be no schisms, no sectarian fights..

the Hindu concept of God

the Hindu concept of God and comparable ideas in othe religion are worth mentioning here..
In Hinduism we have Single God.. supreme God ideas.. like triumverate standing each alone,
or the Parabrahmam or parmatma.. 

and the functional gods like Indra of thrunderbolt, Varuna of seas, Agni of fire, Vayu of Air, Aryama of manes, Ashwins of medicines and so on and so forth. Then there are supreme female Deities Like Shakthi, Durga, Saraswath, Lakshmi etc, and also Indrani, Swadhaa, Swaahaa, Vaarunee, Usha, Sandhya.. etc.. We can call the Divine power collectively manifested as God.. or we can define various functional aspects and define various Gods according to their functions. The Vedic religion of Yajnas and sacrifices depended more on the Gods of the Indra, Soma, Surya, Pushan, Agni, Yama, Varuna.. Group.. Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva also find place in that era but not in their Glory which they assumed later.. One Vedic God who was very potent was Garuda or Taarskhsya, who was relegated to subordinate satus later.. The personal Gods of worship like Shiva, Ganesha, Kuamara and ambika group, and Surya Vishnu and his incarnation like Rama, Krihna, Narasimha all evolved in a subsequent period of Hinduism.. temple-idol dominated, and more participative whereas the Vedic Gods took yajnabhaagams from the Brahmins who performed the Yaagas.. Later on demi-gods, saints and savants also joined the fray.. and now we have babas gurujis, prabhupadas, ammas, and so on and so forth.. The evolution of our religion is dynamic.. and the process continues.. Ideas may vary from time to time and place to place, but it is a catholic pluralism..

punarjanma, moksham

a very valid question raised by a very deeply learned friend

Human birth is the nearest point one can try to realise moksha and shirk off the cycle of birth and death. When a person , especially a close relative or friend, passes away we pray that let his/her soul merge in the Brahman. We daily pray so during food " Brahmani me aatmaa amritatwaya'.

When a girl in the family becomes pregnant, some people tend to bless by saying that let the grand father/ father in law or mother ( or some such close relative not alive) be reborn. Is it not against our belief or prayer. Why should the departed soul get into the cycle?

My views on this

Let us take it this way.. If the person is steadfast towards realization of the Brahmam, and attain Mukthi, his path is clear.. No desire to the contrary by way of either blessing or curse is going to affect him.. But by some chance, the Karmagati in this life is not clear enough to fetch him the mukthi, is it better that he is reborn in the same environs and continues his purusit towards mukthi from the point where he left.?. In such cases, the blessings from elders and the family might do him a lot of good.

.

Human desires, blessings and evan curses are just expressions of human mind.. But sometimes in rare cases such minds would have reacahed such exalted states that such desires or curses would come true.. However, such cases are rarest of the rare..

In fact even in the case of the most exalted persons with sadhana, a directed and purposeful or sakama thought or curse, even when it materializes would deplete the accumulated tapas or the potential spiritual energy of the person at some exalted spirituals stage, and he becomes mere human with karma once again..

This happend to sage Visvamitra again and again

May be the Gods representing the supreme being are exceptions.. because, they will not deplete have their powers depleted through granting boons..

But even they would suffer, like Brahma in many cases, Shiva in the case of Bhasmasura etc..

Secondly, the explanations of life phenomena through Vaidic view following path of yajna etc,, that result in giving blessings like the grandson being reborn as grandson, and the theory of path of Jnaana which carries one to Moksha are basically at variance.. Yajnas prescribed by Vedas are just ladders to enjoyment in heaven, and once the merits gained are used up, the people who went to heaven will have to return to this earth to resume their toils here.. In that case a wish or blessing that he may come back and start as a human in the same family might do him good.. He can, in fact, be reborn as a worm or a piece or grass or a snake or a donkey or a bacteria

And these rules do not apply for the once who are relieved from the cycle of birth and death through Moksham..

Niether blessings nor curses really matter to them.