This post is in consequence to having pasted a link - and having referred to comments there - in the previous post.
Found a comment by someone in defence of Hindoo/Vaidika rituals. Although it was not written in reply to Raj Singh, some of whose comments were referenced in the previous post which were on another article at swarajyamag (swarajyamag.com/culture/untangling-the-false-knots-in-rajiv-malhotras-indras-net/), still seems applicable: IMO, a comment that defends Vaidika rituals (as proper ends in themselves) is very necessary, to offset Raj Singh's off-hand dismissal of ritualism (which Raj Singh opinion btw doesn't reflect any traditional Hindoo view I'm personally familiar with). Especially necessary since pasting from Raj Singh may have come across as an endorsement, when I usually don't agree more than partially at best (but who does):
swarajyamag.com/culture/a-defence-of-hindu-ritualism-and-superstition/
But x3, wasn't Karma yoga already specifically declared to include rituals for attaining the highest end? E.g. in the Bhagavad Geeta, the Karma Yoga chapter (3.1-3.27) already answers Arjuna's question that Bhagavaan Krishna reveal to him what the greatest good is for him (for Arjuna, but also all Hindoos). And besides explaining that Arjuna has his duty to discharge, as discharging one's own dharma is the highest perfection for each individual, Vaidika rituals as interaction with the Hindoo Gods are specifically also mentioned as the "param shreyaH" greatest good (BG 3.11, but all of 3.9-3.16. Also 3.20 shows an example of the attainment of perfection through performing just "karmaNA eva", which may be in Janaka Raja's general living of Vaidika Dharma, but a Hindoo Raja also performs yagnyas, so). [And this looks like it's the chapter that also covers the true meaning of renunciation as being renunciation not of karman itself but of the phalam. Though this is more for Sannyasis and other such evolved non-lay Hindoos, since the aim is to acquire good phalam for Hindoo society - to do good for Hindoo society - while repaying the Gods for the bounties they bestow on the Hindoos.]
The original default meaning of karma was vaidika karma as well as action in accord with one's dharma as prescribed by Vedas, as far as I could follow. Or rather, acts in accordance with these constitute karma yoga. (Buddhism and Jainism rewrote the meaning of karma. And today it further means anything.)
Even in Shankara BP's Advaitam - meant for sannyasis onlee - where karma is not the end in itself, vedic rituals are nevertheless more than merely "preliminary", and are at least prerequisites without which the gnyaana kaandam is totally off-limits (beyond understanding of the aspiring sannyasi anyway). I think BG 3.17-3.18 is more a descriptive for the aims of the sannyasi, although even the established acharyas at Shankara Mathas still perform daily poojas both in private, as part of their ritual practices, as well as performing poojas in the public so the public may partake of it. (Not inconsistent with BG 3.19-3.21, 3.25, IMO. 3.22-3.24 is about why Bhagavaan forever chooses to set the example, which makes 3.21 also highly applicable to Bhagavaan).
For most brahmanas - i.e. those that don't turn into sannyasins - my distinct impression (not from interrogation but from observation and occasionally catching some things stated to us) was that a life of vaidika rituals together with gnyaana kaandam [which also has ritual parts anyway] are thought of as achieving moksha.
And here's a ritualistic old Hindoo swami from AP, who quotes Adi Shankara on how the Vishnu Sahasranamam like the Rudram from the YV confers moksham on the Hindoo. The point being that - as per tradition, at least - the Adi Shankara clearly thinks the declaration made about the Rudram (=Vedic ritual) achieving moksha* for the Hindoo is self-evident and beyond question, and Adi Shankara then proceeds to declare the same is the case with Vishnu Sahasranamam:
[* Because 'immortality' ref below implies no more death. Which implies no more samsaara. Which implies mukti.]
The point of pasting the above is that even actual extant advaita tradition - as seen in the quoted Swami who invokes Adi Shankara - insists Vaidika rituals and pooja confers immortality. [Not to mention that apparently the Veda itself has said so about the ritualistic reciting of the names of the Supreme Ultimate of the Hindoos, i.e. Rudra=Ishwara=also Sarva Devas (see Ashwattha or RHU). And since the Rudram is yajur vedam what's more - being the most 'ritual' oriented Vedam - can there be anything more ritualistic? Then surely the other Vedas also must qualify? Especially since IIRC the Saamam has its own variant of the Rudram too. Whatever, the Hindoos consider the Vedam a most primary authority. Invoking argument from authority here is not a fallacy, since the point is that it is the Vedam that implicates itself I mean testifies for itself of its karma being karma yoga.]
Plus in Hindoos' tantram, at least certain tantra texts -the ones I've heard of/can think of- proclaim of themselves that [with the right perception by the Hindoo bhaktas] they are karma yoga too in their practise with bhakti to the Gods of the text: conferring mukti as well as bhukti*. (Which is exactly the sort of description that is also applicable to the Vedam. But then, Hindoos' ritual practices and Vedam/Vedic rituals is one and the same - belong to the same set - and Hindoos' tantra texts affirm so).
The purpose of this post was actually not to spam all the above comments, but to paste this in response to some of one Raj Singh's statements at an article mentioned in the previous post:
swarajyamag.com/culture/a-defence-of-hindu-ritualism-and-superstition/
Found a comment by someone in defence of Hindoo/Vaidika rituals. Although it was not written in reply to Raj Singh, some of whose comments were referenced in the previous post which were on another article at swarajyamag (swarajyamag.com/culture/untangling-the-false-knots-in-rajiv-malhotras-indras-net/), still seems applicable: IMO, a comment that defends Vaidika rituals (as proper ends in themselves) is very necessary, to offset Raj Singh's off-hand dismissal of ritualism (which Raj Singh opinion btw doesn't reflect any traditional Hindoo view I'm personally familiar with). Especially necessary since pasting from Raj Singh may have come across as an endorsement, when I usually don't agree more than partially at best (but who does):
swarajyamag.com/culture/a-defence-of-hindu-ritualism-and-superstition/
Quote:Jishnu 5 months ago
The real problem about perception of ritual is not just that people think of it as superstition or "preliminary" but that ritual is not associated with the main mukti mArga, namely karma yoga. Path of ritual, performance of karma is karma yoga. That such a fundamental association is not made is a problem in both teaching and learning. The overemphasis on "experiential" nature of sAdhana at the expense of meticulousness, has brought down the overall standard of practice and learning.
But x3, wasn't Karma yoga already specifically declared to include rituals for attaining the highest end? E.g. in the Bhagavad Geeta, the Karma Yoga chapter (3.1-3.27) already answers Arjuna's question that Bhagavaan Krishna reveal to him what the greatest good is for him (for Arjuna, but also all Hindoos). And besides explaining that Arjuna has his duty to discharge, as discharging one's own dharma is the highest perfection for each individual, Vaidika rituals as interaction with the Hindoo Gods are specifically also mentioned as the "param shreyaH" greatest good (BG 3.11, but all of 3.9-3.16. Also 3.20 shows an example of the attainment of perfection through performing just "karmaNA eva", which may be in Janaka Raja's general living of Vaidika Dharma, but a Hindoo Raja also performs yagnyas, so). [And this looks like it's the chapter that also covers the true meaning of renunciation as being renunciation not of karman itself but of the phalam. Though this is more for Sannyasis and other such evolved non-lay Hindoos, since the aim is to acquire good phalam for Hindoo society - to do good for Hindoo society - while repaying the Gods for the bounties they bestow on the Hindoos.]
The original default meaning of karma was vaidika karma as well as action in accord with one's dharma as prescribed by Vedas, as far as I could follow. Or rather, acts in accordance with these constitute karma yoga. (Buddhism and Jainism rewrote the meaning of karma. And today it further means anything.)
Even in Shankara BP's Advaitam - meant for sannyasis onlee - where karma is not the end in itself, vedic rituals are nevertheless more than merely "preliminary", and are at least prerequisites without which the gnyaana kaandam is totally off-limits (beyond understanding of the aspiring sannyasi anyway). I think BG 3.17-3.18 is more a descriptive for the aims of the sannyasi, although even the established acharyas at Shankara Mathas still perform daily poojas both in private, as part of their ritual practices, as well as performing poojas in the public so the public may partake of it. (Not inconsistent with BG 3.19-3.21, 3.25, IMO. 3.22-3.24 is about why Bhagavaan forever chooses to set the example, which makes 3.21 also highly applicable to Bhagavaan).
For most brahmanas - i.e. those that don't turn into sannyasins - my distinct impression (not from interrogation but from observation and occasionally catching some things stated to us) was that a life of vaidika rituals together with gnyaana kaandam [which also has ritual parts anyway] are thought of as achieving moksha.
And here's a ritualistic old Hindoo swami from AP, who quotes Adi Shankara on how the Vishnu Sahasranamam like the Rudram from the YV confers moksham on the Hindoo. The point being that - as per tradition, at least - the Adi Shankara clearly thinks the declaration made about the Rudram (=Vedic ritual) achieving moksha* for the Hindoo is self-evident and beyond question, and Adi Shankara then proceeds to declare the same is the case with Vishnu Sahasranamam:
[* Because 'immortality' ref below implies no more death. Which implies no more samsaara. Which implies mukti.]
Quote:"Etaani ha vaa amritasya naamadheyaani, etair-havaa amrito bhavati" "These are the names of the immortal Almighty [=Ishwara, i.e. Rudra]. By chanting and listening to these names, man** achieves immortality" the Veda has proclaimed while describing about the chapter "Rudraadhyaaya". "The same can be said about Vishnu Sahasranaama" - Sri Shankaracharya has stated.
** And other kinds. E.g. a famous sarpam in TN caught on camera doing bilva pooja on a temple's Shiva Lingam, and which animal obviously recited the Sri Rudram inwardly as dhyana yoga.]
The point of pasting the above is that even actual extant advaita tradition - as seen in the quoted Swami who invokes Adi Shankara - insists Vaidika rituals and pooja confers immortality. [Not to mention that apparently the Veda itself has said so about the ritualistic reciting of the names of the Supreme Ultimate of the Hindoos, i.e. Rudra=Ishwara=also Sarva Devas (see Ashwattha or RHU). And since the Rudram is yajur vedam what's more - being the most 'ritual' oriented Vedam - can there be anything more ritualistic? Then surely the other Vedas also must qualify? Especially since IIRC the Saamam has its own variant of the Rudram too. Whatever, the Hindoos consider the Vedam a most primary authority. Invoking argument from authority here is not a fallacy, since the point is that it is the Vedam that implicates itself I mean testifies for itself of its karma being karma yoga.]
Plus in Hindoos' tantram, at least certain tantra texts -the ones I've heard of/can think of- proclaim of themselves that [with the right perception by the Hindoo bhaktas] they are karma yoga too in their practise with bhakti to the Gods of the text: conferring mukti as well as bhukti*. (Which is exactly the sort of description that is also applicable to the Vedam. But then, Hindoos' ritual practices and Vedam/Vedic rituals is one and the same - belong to the same set - and Hindoos' tantra texts affirm so).
The purpose of this post was actually not to spam all the above comments, but to paste this in response to some of one Raj Singh's statements at an article mentioned in the previous post:
swarajyamag.com/culture/a-defence-of-hindu-ritualism-and-superstition/
Quote:Jishnu 5 months ago
The real problem about perception of ritual is not just that people think of it as superstition or "preliminary" but that ritual is not associated with the main mukti mArga, namely karma yoga. Path of ritual, performance of karma is karma yoga. That such a fundamental association is not made is a problem in both teaching and learning. The overemphasis on "experiential" nature of sAdhana at the expense of meticulousness, has brought down the overall standard of practice and learning.