Kindle Notes & Highlights
Actually there are in some places Brahmins who own the office of a hereditary priesthood of a Muslim Pir and wear a Muslim Pir's dress.
TBR
strange Panchpiriya cult, who worship five Muhammadan saints, of uncertain name and identity, and sacrifice cocks to them, employing for the purpose as their priest a Muhammadan Dafali fakir.
In the north near relatives are forbidden to marry; but in the south cousin marriage is prescribed, and even closer alliances are sometimes permitted.
and others make it a rule to dedicate one daughter to a life of religious prostitution.
TBR which commuities are these?
It is quite true that no Hindu is interested in what his neighbour believes, but he is very much interested in knowing whether he can eat with him or take water from his hands.
What emerges from a reference to the Sarvanukramani is that the Rishis are the authors of the hymns which make up the Rig-Veda. The Rig-Veda therefore on the evidence of the Anukramani cannot but be regarded as a man-made work.
That the Anukramanis are realistic is proved by many passages in the Rig-Veda in which the Rishis describe themselves as the composers of the hymns.
The Vaishashika system admits that the Vedas are authoritative. But the grounds on which it rests its conclusion are: (1) That the Vedas are the product of an intelligent mind and (2) That they have been uttered by God. Therefore they are authoritative.
Logic ultra pro max
'Wherever any object is perceived (by the organ of sight) in its most perfect exercise, such perception can only have reference to the vision of something very distant or very minute, since no organ can go beyond its own proper objects, as e.g., the ear can never become cognizant of form
Wtf does this mean?
The still atmosphere which interferes with the perception of sound is removed by the conjunctions and disjunctions of air issuing from a speaker's mouth, and thus sound (which always exists, though unperceived) becomes perceptible.
Cant everything be proved to be non-transitionary based on this logic
When the word 'go ' (cow) has been repeated ten times, the hearers will say that the word 'go" has been ten times pronounced, not that ten words having the sound of 'go' have been uttered; and this fact also is adduced as a proof of the eternity of sound.
Kucch bhi... Matlab kuchh bhi...
Thirdly, The connection between a word and its meaning is eternal.
Isnt this obviously false?
Fifthly, Because sound is eternal words which are made up of sounds are also eternal. Sixthly Because words are eternal therefore the Vedas are eternal and because the Vedas are eternal they are not made by man nor by God.
By thia logic every speech is eternal! Rational thoight was probably not a strong suit
"The whole character of these compositions and the circumstances under which, from internal evidence, they appear to have arisen, are in harmony with the supposition that they were nothing more than the natural expression of the personal hopes and feelings of those ancient bards of whom they were first recited. In these songs the Aryan sages celebrated the praises of their ancestral gods (while at the same time they sought to conciliate their goodwill by a variety of oblations supposed to be acceptable to them), and besought of them all the blessings which men in general desired— health,
...more
This is my currrent understanding as well. Have been unable to find any meaningful spiritual guidance from vedas
"The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic, three staves, and smearing oneself with ashes," Brihaspati says, "these are but means of livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sense.'" Brahaspati is another example of the same school of thought.
If a beast slain in the Jyotishtoma rite will itself go to heaven; why then does not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father?
Keh ke lenge
Hence it is only a means of livelihood that Brahmans have established here. All these ceremonies are for the dead, there is no other fruit anywhere. The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves and demons.
Oh ! God Vayu, how very beautiful you are. We have prepared the Somarasa (an intoxicating drink) with spices. Pray come and drink it and grant us our prayers—Rig.
Oh! God Indra. Bring ye wealth for our protection. Let the wealth that you bring make us happy be increasing and everlasting and help us to kill our enemies—1.
I may state that I have deliberately omitted a good many obscene passages to be found in the Rig-Veda and Yajur-Veda. Those who have any curiosity in the matter might look up the conversation between Surya and Pushan in Rig-Veda Mandal X. 85.37 and between Indra and Indrani in Rig-Veda. Mandal X. 86.6. A further obscenity will also be found in the Ashvamedha Section of the Yajur-Veda.
TBR
The Vedas may be useful as a source of information regarding the social life of the Aryans. As a picture of primitive life it is full of curiosity but there is nothing elevating. There are more vices and a few virtues.
(bhaishagyani).
Is this where the nane baishmpayan comes from?
Urine (galasha) as a cure for scrofulous.
Genesisn of morarji desai?
Gold as an amulet for long life.
Hmm interesting. Is this where indians' fondness for gold comes from?
ii, 30. Charm to secure the love of a woman. vi. 8. Charm to secure the love of a woman. vi, 9. Charm to secure the love of a woman. vi,102. Charm to secure the love of a woman. iii, 25. Charm to secure the passionate love of a woman.
Note the escalation in the last one
It will thus be seen that the Atharva-Veda is nothing but a collection of sorcery, black-magic and medicine. Three-fourths of it is full of sorcery and black magic.
It must not however be assumed that it is only the Atharva-Veda which contains black-magic and sorcery. The Rig-Veda is not altogether free from it.
Enough has been extracted from the Vedas to show that they contain nothing that can be said to be spiritually or morally elevating. Neither the subject matter nor contents of the Vedas justify the infallibility with which they have been invested. Why then did the Brahmins struggle so hard to clothe them with sanctity and infallibility ?
Bhai ne research karke tabiyat se li hai...
The sanction behind the Sruti was divine. The sanction behind the Smriti was social.
The second rule is that the text of a Smriti should be summarily rejected if it was opposed to the text of the Sruti.
"The custom of the Sati of the later age is in direct conflict with the vedic injunction prohibiting suicide. Apararka, however, argues that the conflict with Sruti should not invalidate the custom. For the Sruti passage lays down a general principle disapproving suicide, while the Smritis lay down a special exception in the case of a widow."
As an illustration of an artificial argument, one may refer to the view propounded by Brahaspati. According to him, Sruti and Srnriti are the two eyes of the Brahmana, if he is void of one of them he becomes a one-eyed person.
Is this the same brihaspati who had berated vedas and vedic practices a few pages ago...
the Upanishads are also known by another name which is called Vedanta. The word Vedanta has got two meanings. In one sense, it means the last parts of the Vedas. In the second sense, it means the essence of the Vedas.
The point of dispute was—Is it necessary to perform sacrifices ? The Vedas say ' yes ' and the Upanishads say ' no '.
Ideas of caste rigidity would be repugnant to the highly-evolved Saiva who would at best tolerate such notions in others who had not reached his own stage of development.
Hence, the Agamas or rules laid down for the guidance of Siva bhaktas did not emphasise caste, and were concerned only with the duties of bhaktas in general, the proper fulfilment of which would render them fit to gain God vision, and ultimately union with Siva. These were regarded as impure by the others because they were subversive of caste ideas, and as stated before, they were not alluded to in the orthodox scriptures."
The Greek Philosopher Zenophanes insists that polytheism or plurality of Gods is inconceivable and contradictory. That the only true doctrine was monotheism. Considered from a philosophical point of view, Zenophanes might be right. But from the historical point of view both are natural. Monotheism is natural where society is a single community. Where society is a federation of many communities polytheism is both natural and inevitable.
Because every ancient community consisted not merely of men but of men and its Gods it was impossible for the various communities to merge and coalesce except on one condition that its God is also accepted by the rest. This is how polytheism has grown.
Real objection to Hindu idolatry is that it is not mere photography, not mere production of an image. It is more than that. The Hindu idol is a living being and is endowed with all the functions of a human being.
A Hindu idol is given life by means of a ceremony called Pranapratishtha. The Buddhists also are idolatrous in as much as they too worship Buddha's idol. But the idol they worship is only a photograph, a mere image. There is no soul in it.
Very interesting
At present the Hindus worship four Gods (1) Shiva, (2) Vishnu, (3) Rama and (4) Krishna.
What about kali, durga, ganesh?
At two places the Rig-Veda speaks of three thousand three hundred and nine Gods.
3309 gods!
For some reasons, which it is not possible for us now to know, this number came to be reduced to thirty-three
Merging of duplicate gods?!
For the first question we can find no answer. The Brahmanic literature gives us no clue whatsoever as to why the Brahmins abandoned the worship of Agni, Indra, Surya and Brahma. There is some explanation as to why the cult of Brahma disappeared. It rests in a charge which is found to be levelled in the Brahmanic literature against Brahma. The charge is that he committed rape on his own daughter and hereby made himself unworthy of worship and devotion. Whatever be the truth in the charge it could not be regarded as sufficient to account for the abandonment of Brahma and for two reasons. In the
...more
Why was indra, agnj abandoned? What charges against krishna worse than rape of daughter?
There can be no better evidence to prove that Shiva was an anti-vedic God than his destruction of Daksha's Yajna.
Not convinced. Is he really trying to make sense of this nonsensical fairytale?
But a time came when they were placed below the Devi by name Shri. How this happened is told in the Devi Bhagwat The Devi Bhagwat says that a Devi by name Shri created the whole world and that it is this Goddess who created Bramha, Vishnu and Shiva!
Holy Inception of origin stories!!
Obviously there is a certain amount of artificiality in the cult of Krishna as compared with the cult of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Bramha, Vishnu and Mahesh were born gods. Krishna was a man who was raised to godhood.
It is therefore clear that so far as the Gita is concerned there is no God greater than Krishna. He is, Alla ho Akbar. He is greater than all other Gods.
Heh
The case of Rama as a God is much more artificial than that of Krishna. Rama himself was unware of the fact that he was a God.
It is probably to make his Godhood perfect that the theory was invented that he was the incarnation of Vishnu and that Sita his wife was the incarnation of Lakshmi the wife of Vishnu.
