is drinking okay?

[arunshanker]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

thanks arun:welcome: for such a (new for me) messages about soma banam if possible explain more.

Thanks very much Arun Shanker.

Are there any specific phytochemicals that produce the hallucinogen effect in cannabis, and does the traditional method of bhang preparation temper it down to a medicinal drink?

delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), Δ1-THC (using an older chemical nomenclature), or dronabinol, is the main psychoactive substance found in the Cannabis plant.
The effects are You feel a general sense of well being and relaxation, giggliness and euphoria. You may also experience introspective dreaminess, increased appreciation of music, sleepiness and time distortion. The effects can be subtle. First time users often detect little or no effect.
actually in short it is heightened sense of perception note the effect on music
time distortion is marked unlike alcohol you feel time passing much slower than normal an hour will be like a few hours you feel that you can listen to each instrument separately in time and space when you listen to music
An increase in appetite and a craving for sweets is an immediate effect
You may be surprised here that our brain makes its own chemical which is very closely related to THC in terms of its effects
and very aptly it is called "anandamide" note the word Anand in it - which is thought to be involved in pain sensations, memory regulation and the immune system.
It is basically an endogenous ( Home Made - our body makes it ) and very similar in effects to cannabis
More in my next post

 

[sapr333]

Lets reduce the discussion on cannabis Sativa.. Oh my!! its a very,cheaply available dangerous stuff!!

God only know, how bad it pushes one's life to the bad pitiable extremes of life, and how much is the struggling for one to come out of its god-damn addiction..

Even in milder counts as pain reliever, even in the name of 'bong', never ever recommend it to the next generation...

 

[happyhindu]

Sapr,

no, no we are not talking about addiction. bhang drink need not have a lot of cannabis in it. Its all about moderation, just taking a bit, like prasadam.

instead its very interesting to know why chemicals in the brain are altered due to intake of certain things. And just curious to know if the ancients knew the ways of using things the curative way.



Anand Shanker,

Thanks very much for the reply. Waiting to hear more from you.

i read that arachidonic acid amides like anandamide inhibit gap junction cell-cell communication -- maybe that's why they feel time as very "spaced out" ? can such a possibilty be true?

In a normal person or under certain conditions it seems to damage dna and can cause cancer. But in cases where cancerous cells are already existing, it seems to be curative (a study found it can destroy leukaemia cells). So it does have certain curative properties, which probably will be used in future medicine development

One paper mentioned that anandamide is also present in cacao, no wonder chocolate feels like bliss

Also read that arachidonyl ethanolamide (ananamide) supposedly increases dopamine levels. Since meditation also helps increase levels of dopamine, is it possible that meditation can play a role in decreasing craving ?

I am finding this very interesting. Thanks much for the discussion.

 

[arunshanker]

Lets reduce the discussion on cannabis Sativa.. Oh my!! its a very,cheaply available dangerous stuff!!

God only know, how bad it pushes one's life to the bad pitiable extremes of life, and how much is the struggling for one to come out of its god-damn addiction..

Even in milder counts as pain reliever, even in the name of 'bong', never ever recommend it to the next generation...

Hey Sapr
Cool down ! nobody is recommending it to anyone It is a scholarly discussion I bet all the people in this forum are wise enough to understand that!

 

[care5]

A definition of brahmin may vary from people to people. So, I can't really define it. But if a person seeks divinity and embarks on spiritual path renouncing non-veg and alcohol 100%, then he brahmin.
Others are just people who only proclaim. So, don't even give me this explanation about moderation and all those narrow minded opportunistic excuses. Like Bush mentioned, you are either with us or not with us. There is no gray area when it comes to spiritual path.

I personally don't believe in caste, thanks to the Guru who guides me about services to society. I have tons of non-brahmin friends who have renounced everything and carry on their mission to take care of their family. I know brahmins friends who knows all those lalitha and vishnu sahasranamams, but also go full throttle on oru milli within minutes of finishing the slokams. That is why Karunanidhi puts brahmins in their spot. I know these people who call themselves as brahmins, but do things behind closed doors. Like Jesus said, you can have god as your friend or money as your friend, but not both. So, the society ignores him also like Americans.

anyway, don't live in two identities, because you are cheating yourselves and your circles. I am only informing you that if you are proud to be brahmin, live like one. Otherwise, just relinquish and don't say that is that and this is this and the two are different.

Thank you for all those good discussions. For those, who don't drink and embark on a spiritual life, please continue to do so. For the rest, please continue to do so whatever your are doing, but stop giving lectures about moderation.

Please accept my sincere thanks in joining the discussions.

Have a great day!!!!

 

[happyhindu]

Care5,

I suppose you have heard that Shiva used to drink bhang. That'ss what the tantrics maintain. But He did not get drunk. His mind, breath, hearbeat, pulse, thoughts, everything was controlled by Him. Shiva rules death, as Yamaraj.

And i suppose you also know that Parashurama used to get drunk in the Mahabharat.

The soma-vanshis or chandravanshis were brewing soma. Krishna was a somavanshi. So were they wrong? Probably it helped them to feel no fear in war.

In the old past, people were sacrificing animals and offering it to God. Vedic yagnas were not complete without animal sacrifice.

Later it was considered superstition, taboo, inhuman, etc. These changes happened in the aftermath of buddhism, in the wake of puranic hindusim.

But then that is how hindu culture was, and continues to be in many parts of the country. Not only in india, but also in Nepal (heard of dakshinkali temple in nepal where animal sacrifices are performed? in nepal, buddhists also perform animal sacrifice). Read this recent one: http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/11/stories/2007111153540300.htm

The islamic custom of animal sacrifice has its origin in its native pagan beleif. Just like in hindu, they beleive the spirit needs to be appeased before the sacrifice is made, and therefore they make it halal - offered to god.

Even now some elderly hindus (villagers) believe meat must never be consumed without offering as sacrifice to god. Sounds gross i suppose.

They wud set a date, time, after consulting the panchangam. They were not meat-eaters, and hardly enjoyed the meat eating troublesome experience. But well it was a practice - they believed if a goat (bali ka bakra) was not sacrificed at particular times to the god, then something wrong wud happen.

Why do you wear kumkum - it supposedly represents blood. A rajput slits his finger and applies his own blood as sindoor to his bride, like a blood-bond commitment.

The Christian says, 'may the blood of Christ be upon you' - he is talking about that same blood-bond, between God and you.

During abhishekham you pour kumkum (it used to be blood of animals, sometimes human in those days) over the idol of a god / goddess. It was supposed to represent that same blood-bond between god and you. A balavan or a so-called strong or valiant warrior wud give his own sacrifice to bhagavan, the god, to fulfill vows. Was it wrong? Well, it was just the sensibilities of those times. We have read such stories, such practices probably existed thru the early puranic times, but disappeared later.

Even to this day, people crucify themselves just like Christ was crucified. People pierce themselves carrying kavadis, with no bloodshed though. In Chinese customs, they pierce whole knives and spears into a man in trance.

These are all native beleifs.

Drinking, animal sacrifice, eating sanctified non-veg, abhishekam with blood, etc, all just happened to exist.

What is there to possibly deny it.

Drinking, without addiction, like say only as a tasty drink, like orange juice, just happens to exist as well..

 

[arunshanker]

care 5
you say that
"But if a person seeks divinity and embarks on spiritual path renouncing non-veg and alcohol 100%, then he brahmin".
Do you say that one who eats meat cannot seek divinity or spiritual path
I think nobody here is lecturing on moderation
on the other hand you are lecturing on abstinence
Spiritually has got nothing to do with food and drink
Can you quote for the vedas that one has to abstain from meat to be a brahmin
Brahmin is a concept and more of a personality trait than something that has been tagged by virtue of birth
Is it not true that I am a brahmin just because I have been born to Brahmin parents?
Then what about eating Garlic which has been proved to be of immense medicinal value in these morden days of environmental pollution that brings about so many diseases in men that was never there in the days of yore ?

 

[sapr333]

Excellent post Happy Hindu & Arun.. Good thoughts..

 

[arratai_virumbi]

Dear all!

Please allow me to share the thoughts of our Legend "Vithurar" on liqour/alchohol/toddy,kallu drinking.

It may be a "slap in the face" by VITHURAR, for some people who have posted their opinion here.

I'm not sure , how people here going to react to that, Would they take that in good heed and respect, or would they be showing disrespect to that great being?

Let's see the mindset of our posters...

Well ! HE said ,

If a dvijan(twice born) consumes toddy/kallu and gets intoxicated he commits an act of BrahmaHATTI. Effectively apart from a Shudra , HE warns other 3 varnas/jathis of the impending papa they accrue of intoxication.


thanks

 

[sapr333]

Dear all!

If a dvijan(twice born) consumes toddy/kallu and gets intoxicated he commits an act of BrahmaHATTI. Effectively apart from a Shudra , HE warns other 3 varnas/jathis of the impending papa they accrue of intoxication.


thanks

Any idea, why sudras are exempted from this 'prohibition' act ? Why sudra's are given such a favour?

 

[arratai_virumbi]

Dear Mr. Sapr333

Will give a try, In general, out of the 4 human pursuits which are Artha,kama,Dharma and Moksha, one varna/jathi strives for one pursuit more than the other 3 pursuits. Doesn't mean there is a complete neglect of the other pursuits, but one of the pursuit is more appealing than the others to them. generally one can observe this.

The pursuit of KAMA is more appealing to Shudra, likewise pursuit of Artha is more appealing to VAISHYA, etc...Given their strong disposition for the pursuit of pleasure it becomes meaningless to prohibhit them from intoxication , one should understand the pshyique of that varna and one should set what is proper to them. Such kind of sensitivity is what distinguishes the degree of refinity in setting the social rules.

Without understanding the nuances not only PROHIBHITION ACT nothing will work in . People are different, there needs are different and the rules should also be different.

BTW,I see your question and my reply is a bit out of the topic intended. Let's not deviate and keep to the quest of this thread.

thanks

 

[arunshanker]

Dear all!

Please allow me to share the thoughts of our Legend "Vithurar" on liqour/alchohol/toddy,kallu drinking.

It may be a "slap in the face" by VITHURAR, for some people who have posted their opinion here.

I'm not sure , how people here going to react to that, Would they take that in good heed and respect, or would they be showing disrespect to that great being?

Let's see the mindset of our posters...

Well ! HE said ,

If a dvijan(twice born) consumes toddy/kallu and gets intoxicated he commits an act of BrahmaHATTI. Effectively apart from a Shudra , HE warns other 3 varnas/jathis of the impending papa they accrue of intoxication.


thanks

Actually a sane person would not go by the sayings of mythical characters on what should be the composition of ones food and drink
Quote "It may be a "slap in the face" by VITHURAR, for some people who have posted their opinion here."
I dont see why it should do that
Prbly Vithurar will feel I slapped him by saying what I said above
Now quote"Would they take that in good heed and respect, or would they be showing disrespect to that great being?"
Hey man! he is just a character in an epic and says the words that was out into to stabilize the society at the time it was written
but in truth let me tell about a quote
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
From "The Friends of Voltaire", written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall and published in 1906 under the pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre.
Thats the spirit in forums
carry on!

 

[happyhindu]

Dear all!

Please allow me to share the thoughts of our Legend "Vithurar" on liqour/alchohol/toddy,kallu drinking.

It may be a "slap in the face" by VITHURAR, for some people who have posted their opinion here.

I'm not sure , how people here going to react to that, Would they take that in good heed and respect, or would they be showing disrespect to that great being?

Let's see the mindset of our posters...

Well ! HE said ,

If a dvijan(twice born) consumes toddy/kallu and gets intoxicated he commits an act of BrahmaHATTI. Effectively apart from a Shudra , HE warns other 3 varnas/jathis of the impending papa they accrue of intoxication.


thanks

apparently vidhura said "if a dvija gets intoxicated". he does not seem to have prohibitted drink as long as a man does not get intoxicated.

actually av, there are so many versions of who said what. the kurus, vrishnis, andhakas, were all supposed to be brewing soma and drinking. i suppose they were not dvijas to have been doing that (krishna included ?). am wondering why wud vidhura, a shudra, from the soma cult, say something as a lifestyle matter related to the dvijas. and how about Parashurama drinking? He is a brahmin, rite?

 

[anandb]

Dear Happy Hindu,

I have some serious objections about your comments. We Hindus, especially Brahmins, have a peculiar tendency. We do not follow a lot of what is said in our shastras and a possible explanation offered is times have changed, society has become modern so we have to change etc but then for certain others we readily quote from our scriptures or people and say it is justified. Like the examples you quoted of Shiva or Parashurama drinking bhang so the mere mortals of kaliyuga are justified as well? The concept of soma and animal sacrifice has been one of the most misunderstood concepts in Hinduism and unfortunately instead of delving deep into the subject to understand it or relying on a seer’s words we think we have understood it all. I am no expert in this but quoting what the Paramacharyal has stated. Certain places I am quoting verbatim from the translation of his speeches. It may be boring for some but I found it absolutely absorbing.

Firstly he states categorically that Brahmins gorged on meat and wine in ancient times as wrong. The ancient Brahmin had 40 samskaras to perform in his life time. Apart from the first 13 (Garbhadana to Marriage), he had the 5 pancha maha-yagnas (performed daily) and the 7 types of haviryagnas, pakayagnas and the somayagnas (7 each) performed at differing intervals. The first time an animal is sacrificed is during a haviryagna called Niruda Pasubandha (samskara no 39) where one animal is sacrificed. Quoting the Periavaa verbatim “there are rules regarding the meat to be carved out from a sacrificial animal, the part of the body from which it is to be taken and the quantity each rtvik can partake as prasada (idavatarana). This is not more than the size of a pigeon-pea and it is to be swallowed without anything added to taste”. Apart from this there are certain somayagnas where animals are sacrificed.

In the last haviryagna called “Sautramani”, sura (liquor or wine) is offered to inferior powers or deities (I think deities like the “Ellai Deivam” in villages) for the welfare of the world never to higher deities. After the yagna, quoting the Acharya, “What is leftover of the liquor – purified by the mantras – is imbibed by the performers of the sacrifice, the quantity taken in being less than a quarter of an ounce”.

The Acharya states that certain terms when translated into English have given a wrong meaning. He says yagnas were translated as Sacrifices giving a wrong notion to people that it involved humongous amount of “mrgabali”. It is like calling the Homa fire as the Sacrificial Fire. While Bali is a direct offering to god, most of the yagnas involved offerings in the sacrificial fire like ahuti or havis (ghee). He cites an example of a pakayagna called “sravani” also called “sarpabali”. Basically this involves putting rice and ghee in fire and flowers of the flame of the forest are placed on kolams drawn on anthills and offerings made to snakes with chanting of mantras. Though it is called “sarpabali” there is no bali involved.

He also clears the misconception about Somayagnas. There are seven types of somayagnas where the main feature is offering the essence of the soma plant in the fire while singing Sama-veda. There are altogether 16 rtviks in a somayagna and the simultaneous chanting of the Sama-veda creates an almost heady, intoxicating effect which later came to be mistakenly identified as priests getting drunk.

Well, for those of us who are keen to know how sacrificial killing was justified in those times, the Acharya asks us to read the Uttaramimamsa (Gnanakanda) of the Vedas. He says Vyasa in his Brahmasutra says animal sacrifice is not sinful as it is permeated by the sound of Vedas. Ok, this was those times.

He then states that the scriptures have stated that the following is to be avoided in Kali Yuga by the following verse.

Asvalambham gavalambham sanyasam palapatrikam
Devarena sutotpattim kalau panca vivarjayet.

I don’t understand Sanskrit but it means “Horse and cow sacrifices, meat in sraddha ceremony, sannyasa and begetting a son by the husband’s brother” is not permitted during kali yuga.

So in conclusion, I would state this. So this clearly proves that even for a Brahmin who performs the 40 samskaras and living by begging, all he does is partake the meat and liquor like a Prasad and not gorge huge quantities of it. To say the Brahmin of kaliyuga can do all this drawing parallels from the ancient where none exist, I will not agree.

 

[anandb]

Dear Arun Shankar,
I beg to differ. Spirituality has a lot to do with food and drink. To me spirituality is not just going to temples, doing poojas or chanting vedas. If it is just that, I agree food and drink does not matter. It is beyond all that. Since you asked for the meaning of a brahmana, just giving you this beautiful meaning from Vajrasucika Upanishad.

The four varnas are: brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya, and sudra. Among these,
the brahmanas are foremost. This is the verdict of the Vedas and the Smrti. In
these places the question is asked, "Who is a brahmana? On what basis is some-
one a brahmana? Among life (jiva), body (deha), birth (jati), knowledge (jnana),
work (karma), and duty (dharma) what is it that constitutes a brahmana?"
The first question is: Since the jiva is part of Brahman, and alive, does that
make him a brahmana? No. It is incorrect to call any jiva a brahmana. There
are countless jivas who have accepted innumerable material bodies according
to their karma and mentality, but they cannot all be called brahmanas).
The next point is whether one's body (deha) makes one a brahmana. The
answer is no. The body of a candala as well as that of all other men are subject
to infirmity and death. It is only with respect to the way in which the mentalities
of different classes of men are colored by different conceptions of religion and
irreligion that brahmanas are called "white," (nveta-varna) ksatriyas "red," (rakta-
varna) vaisyas "yellow," (pita-varna) and sudra "black" (krsna varna). In this
way, it should be clearly understood that one is not a brahmana on the basis of
his body (deha). By burning up one's body one does not become free from the
sin of killing a brahmana; nor is that sin transferred to one's son. In the same
way one's brahminical status is not based on one's bodily condition, nor can
brahminical status be transferred simply by seminal discharge and the procre-
ation of children. Therefore it is concluded that the body (deha) does not make
one a brahmana.
The next point is whether one becomes a brahmana by birth (jati). The
answer is no. In the midst of mixed ancestry have come great-souled rsis. The
Rsi Snrga took birth from a deer, and Kausika was born from straw, Jambhuka
rsi was raised by a jackal, and Valmiki came from an anthill. Vyasa was born
from a fisherman's daughter and the sage Gautama was born from a rabbit.
Vasistha was born from a dancing girl Urvasi. From a pitcher (in which semen
was stored) the sage Agastya took birth. There are many examples of great
saints who did not know in what circumstances they took birth. Therefore birth
does not make a brahmana.
And what of jnana? Knowledge does not make a brahmana either. Many
ksatriyas are vastly experienced in knowing the supreme goal of life. Therefore
knowledge does not make a brahmana.
What about fate? Karma does not make one a brahmana either. All living
beings have amassed karma from previous lives and have their karmic destinies
to live out in the future along with their karmas and dharmas. According to
one's karmic desires he is further implicated in karmic fate and continues to live
in the world of action and reaction. A "brahmana" is more than this, and there-
fore karma does not make one a brahmana.
Then what about dharma, religion? Mundane piety does not make a
brahmana either. There are many examples of great ksatriyas who were highly
religious and gave much gold in charity, but they were not brahmanas.
Then what is a brahmana? A brahmana is one who is absorbed only in the
Supreme Self. He is free from all mundane attributes of birth, work, and mater-
ialistic qualities, who is free from all faults. His very nature is that he takes
pleasure in the knowledge of the limitless Supreme Truth. A real brahmana is
completely absorbed in the infinite, limitless, absolute Supreme Person (present
within the heart of every living being as the Supersoul just as ether pervades
everything). That Supreme Lord is indivisible, and His very nature is divine
ecstasy. The infinite is not a mango that can be grasped through sense experi-
ence; neither can He be known, directly or indirectly, through mental specula-
tion.) Such a brahmana is free from faults such as lust, anger, greed, pride, illu-
sion, and envy. He has all twelve brahminical qualities beginning with peaceful-
ness and self-control (samo, dama, tapa, etc.). He is never envious and is free
from illusion and from any touch of pride and false ego. One who has these
qualities may be called a brahmana. This is the opinion of the Sruti, Smrti, Puranas
and Itihasas. No other endowments of perfection can confer brahminical status.

Thanks

 

[kunjuppu]

i think, there appears to be an ambivalent attitude, even among those who consider drinking as not befitting a true brahmin.

personally, i like my drinks. to me, after a day's work, it is an easy and enjoyable method to rid of tensions acquired. nothing extraordinary about these tension, but they exist regardless.

others might do yoga, jogging or intense prayers. whatever works for you.

but i do have an objection for someone to point fingers. how quickly one forgets, that four other fingers are pointing back at you.

in excess, anything is harmful - be it alcohol, gambling, fasting or for that matter eating. it is upto each of us, to monitor ourselves.

i have also observed, there are those, who consider themselves to have 'erred' in the past by partaking alcohol and meat, and who have been 'reborn'. thus armed with the zealousy of the converted, i think, these folks go about swinging the whip of taliban on unsuspecting and unbothered simpletons.

it is time, maybe these folks, quietly practise what they preach and by doing so, set examples by doing what they say. consistently and over time, they might be able to convince others to their way of life.

but on the other hand, the converts, can also be reconverted to the old evil ways, which in my opinion, may not be so bad after all.

thank you.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Anand,

My comments in maroon:

Dear Happy Hindu,

I have some serious objections about your comments. We Hindus, especially Brahmins, have a peculiar tendency. We do not follow a lot of what is said in our shastras and a possible explanation offered is times have changed, society has become modern so we have to change etc but then for certain others we readily quote from our scriptures or people and say it is justified. Like the examples you quoted of Shiva or Parashurama drinking bhang so the mere mortals of kaliyuga are justified as well? The concept of soma and animal sacrifice has been one of the most misunderstood concepts in Hinduism and unfortunately instead of delving deep into the subject to understand it or relying on a seer’s words we think we have understood it all. I am no expert in this but quoting what the Paramacharyal has stated. Certain places I am quoting verbatim from the translation of his speeches. It may be boring for some but I found it absolutely absorbing.

Well, every single yog tradition i know maintains that Shiva did drink bhang. But did not get intoxicated. Bhang, when drunk a wee bit like prasad does not produce any adverse effects. It was treated as medicinal.

Mahabharat says Parashurama drank. An wondering if Krishna also drank. What is wrong with it. They were warrior tribes. It was allowed for them.

Where did i justify it ? I do not beleive in drinking to the extent of intoxication. I dunno if anyone is offering liquor to any god now. As far as i know, the answer is "no" in all castes and "yes" in some tribes. But i hear some tamil 'low' castes offer liquor to Shiva, dunno how far it is true. Wud be glad if someone can share the details of which castes, tribes or groups offer liquor to god.

And why bring Paramacharya's words into the pic for every single thing?


Firstly he states categorically that Brahmins gorged on meat and wine in ancient times as wrong. The ancient Brahmin had 40 samskaras to perform in his life time. Apart from the first 13 (Garbhadana to Marriage), he had the 5 pancha maha-yagnas (performed daily) and the 7 types of haviryagnas, pakayagnas and the somayagnas (7 each) performed at differing intervals. The first time an animal is sacrificed is during a haviryagna called Niruda Pasubandha (samskara no 39) where one animal is sacrificed. Quoting the Periavaa verbatim “there are rules regarding the meat to be carved out from a sacrificial animal, the part of the body from which it is to be taken and the quantity each rtvik can partake as prasada (idavatarana). This is not more than the size of a pigeon-pea and it is to be swallowed without anything added to taste”. Apart from this there are certain somayagnas where animals are sacrificed.

The underlined lines can seem somewhat contradictory. Yes gorging / gluttonery was not present, but consumption certainly was present.

Ofcourse Paramacharya said the right thing by saying it was allowed as prasada. If an animal is sacrificed, you think all parts of it are cooked? And if it is a sacrifical animal, where everyone shares the consumable-meat part, then how much portion will each person get? They used to sacrifice only one goat and an entire group of atleast 50 people, sometimes the whole clan or village, wud share it. If sharing with family, they wud get only the size smaller than the centre of your palm, as prasadam. If sharing with the village, they wud get only that pea-sized portion.

I too have heard that in the past nothing was added to taste. But man has evolved a long way from being capable of eating raw meat or meat cooked without salt. With due respect to Paramacharya, i think this rule changed somewhere. Am not saying the meat is / was meant to be eaten for taste. It was not made tasty, but it was cooked with salt to make it consumable.

It was only much later, villagers used spices (call it the degradation of human desire of yeilding to the temptation of taste, it became similar to how muslims make biryani out of sacrificed meat). There are elderly people who still say that sacrifical meat was not meant to be eaten to serve the depraved taste of the tongue. I hear if sacrificed meat was not available, then they were supposed to remain vegetarian.


In the last haviryagna called “Sautramani”, sura (liquor or wine) is offered to inferior powers or deities (I think deities like the “Ellai Deivam” in villages) for the welfare of the world never to higher deities. After the yagna, quoting the Acharya, “What is leftover of the liquor – purified by the mantras – is imbibed by the performers of the sacrifice, the quantity taken in being less than a quarter of an ounce”.

You are quoting acharya saying what we have been saying all along - that soma or sura was used in havans in the past. It was also consumed. Again, it was not meant to intoxicate. The small portion is the moderation part. The quarter of an ounce sounds like a peg?

The Acharya states that certain terms when translated into English have given a wrong meaning. He says yagnas were translated as Sacrifices giving a wrong notion to people that it involved humongous amount of “mrgabali”. It is like calling the Homa fire as the Sacrificial Fire. While Bali is a direct offering to god, most of the yagnas involved offerings in the sacrificial fire like ahuti or havis (ghee). He cites an example of a pakayagna called “sravani” also called “sarpabali”. Basically this involves putting rice and ghee in fire and flowers of the flame of the forest are placed on kolams drawn on anthills and offerings made to snakes with chanting of mantras. Though it is called “sarpabali” there is no bali involved.

Then why does one offer kumkum in the homam. It used to be the sacrifical animal's blood in the past. I remeber having seen something to this effect in the movie on Sri Adi Shankaracharya (the one by GV Iyer in Sanskrit). I think Sri Adi Shankara was the one who asked for blood to be replaced by blood coloured powder instead (?) but am not sure about this, will check out and let you know.

He also clears the misconception about Somayagnas. There are seven types of somayagnas where the main feature is offering the essence of the soma plant in the fire while singing Sama-veda. There are altogether 16 rtviks in a somayagna and the simultaneous chanting of the Sama-veda creates an almost heady, intoxicating effect which later came to be mistakenly identified as priests getting drunk.

No one here said the priests got drunk.

Well, for those of us who are keen to know how sacrificial killing was justified in those times, the Acharya asks us to read the Uttaramimamsa (Gnanakanda) of the Vedas. He says Vyasa in his Brahmasutra says animal sacrifice is not sinful as it is permeated by the sound of Vedas. Ok, this was those times.

Well, animal sacrifices seems to have had its origin when man began settling from hunting to farming. But man still had to hunt to protect himself. He also had this idea of a 'super-power' and treating fire as a medium to that super-power. He preferred to offer his hunted meat or crop produce to god. His chants accompanying his ritual and later the elaborate structured stuff may have come later. Am not surprised animal sacrifices are part of vedic culture (bcoz it was very early on in timeline when man moved to civilization). I suppose you have read abt sacrifice of horses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashvamedha


He then states that the scriptures have stated that the following is to be avoided in Kali Yuga by the following verse.

Asvalambham gavalambham sanyasam palapatrikam
Devarena sutotpattim kalau panca vivarjayet.

I don’t understand Sanskrit but it means “Horse and cow sacrifices, meat in sraddha ceremony, sannyasa and begetting a son by the husband’s brother” is not permitted during kali yuga.

Yes ofcourse, no hindu is offering ashvas or gavas in any form as a sacrifice in this kaliyuga. I dunno abt horses, but killing a cow is considered an unforgivable sin. These days it is just the hapless poor bali ka bakra, the goat.

So in conclusion, I would state this. So this clearly proves that even for a Brahmin who performs the 40 samskaras and living by begging, all he does is partake the meat and liquor like a Prasad and not gorge huge quantities of it. To say the Brahmin of kaliyuga can do all this drawing parallels from the ancient where none exist, I will not agree.

Well, ascetics have always been consuming what is given to them as bhiksha. Agastya ate meat given to him as bhiksha bhogam by an asura. Nobody is supposed to be a glutton gorging on anything.

You quote all the examples and then say that in the ancient "none exist". Well, it is each one's personal choice. If you do not believe in animal sacrifice, its your wish. If there are villagers or tribals who still believe in it, again its their wish. If you do not believe in meat and drink, again it is your wish. If someone consumes these things, not as a glutton or a drunkard, then it is his wish (though the whole idea of buying meat from a kasai or consuming meat not offered as a sacrifice did not exist in the past. Times have changed, haven't they - atleast the muslims still keep meat halal - given to god).

 

[sapr333]

Dear Mr. Sapr333

The pursuit of KAMA is more appealing to Shudra, likewise pursuit of Artha is more appealing to VAISHYA, etc...Given their strong disposition for the pursuit of pleasure it becomes meaningless to prohibhit them from intoxication , one should understand the pshyique of that varna and one should set what is proper to them. Such kind of sensitivity is what distinguishes the degree of refinity in setting the social rules.

thanks

So, you are telling me Sage Vatsyayana is a sutra?

 

[happyhindu]

Sapr,

Vatsyayana supposedly was commissioned by a king to study the sexual habits of various people in various regions. He was a celibate brahmachari himself. He wrote what he saw, did not experience it himself.

But cud not help smiling at this explanation of arattai: one should understand the pshyique of that varna and one should set what is proper to them. Such kind of sensitivity is what distinguishes the degree of refinity in setting the social rules

You see there are guys who claim to have inherited sensitivity as per varna by birth. So they are the only people blessed with "goodness" or sattva gunam but others have none of it (by birth again) - for a long time i thot it sounded comical, later got used to these claims..

 

[kunjuppu]

You see there are guys who claim to have inherited sensitivity as per varna by birth. So they are the only people blessed with "goodness" or sattva gunam but others have none of it (by birth again) - for a long time i thot it sounded comical, later got used to these claims..

happy, 'comical' is very kind and tolerant view.

my take on this, it is ignorance, in a benign sense. a wise man, may attribute his gifts to God, but i think, will not attribute it, to the very narrow definition of caste/creed for these came much later into our practice.

incidentally, this is one of my takes on islam and christianity. they promise to guarantee heavendom to the converted, but leave their ancestors in limbo. i think, all of us come with this baggage of ancestors, whether we accept them or not, and in some ways or other, pay for their sins.

....

 

[sapr333]

11)))but i do have an objection for someone to point fingers. how quickly one forgets, that four other fingers are pointing back at you.


22))i have also observed, there are those, who consider themselves to have 'erred' in the past by partaking alcohol and meat, and who have been 'reborn'. thus armed with the zealousy of the converted, i think, these folks go about swinging the whip of taliban on unsuspecting and unbothered simpletons.

it is time, maybe these folks, quietly practise what they preach and by doing so, set examples by doing what they say. consistently and over time, they might be able to convince others to their way of life.

33)but on the other hand, the converts, can also be reconverted to the old evil ways, which in my opinion, may not be so bad after all.

thank you.

Oh my.. Shri.Kujuppu, I just love the way you put things.. I got a craving to long for your post.. But, your finest well chosen Vocabs are missing in this post... a thing , which pumped a psychedelic laughter in me, just by looking in to LCD screen.

I'm not sure how many of us here has picked up you subtle/diplomatic/Politically correct message, in your previous post...

11) Its an amazing 'Pazhamozhi'....He who point wrong in someone's eyes, let him look at the 'lintel blocks' hidden under his eye lids..

22) An interesting dig at GWB father son duo.

33) FREEDOM... Freedom of my choice..

Once again, I missing ur vocabs...

 

[happyhindu]

kunjuppu-ji,

i really did find it funny in the beginning. i mean it did not make sense and i used to wonder at the claims.

but then i have come a long way getting to know different kinds of people over the past year, talking, asking and sometime making the other person a caste conscious casteist..

i also wonder if Christ's ancestors went to hell bcoz they were not baptized..

every religion faces this situation of being in a quagmire where people question things in it.

blessed are those who are able to accept without questioning, like my mum. we never tire of 'irritating' each other.

 

[arunshanker]

Dear Anand
Do you mean that no individual who eats meat can be spiritual?

 

[arratai_virumbi]

Dear Arun Shanker!

I just quoted from Vithura - Dridhrastra Sambaashanai as told in our ITIHASA - Mahabharata!

Do you mean a person who quotes from our our Itihasas, is a insane person ?

If this is the case , you are questioning the sanity of our Puranikas, Mystics , Saints , in a nut-shell our entire culture. Because they all quote our Itihasasa to instill good qualities to the common men for milliena.

I think you are a bit too much carried away.

Did I said anything that you don't have a right to write your opinions - No , not at all you can write anything you like and you want. After all who am I? I'm neither a moderator nor a person to edit your post.

So you please continue.

Thanks

Actually a sane person would not go by the sayings of mythical characters on what should be the composition of ones food and drink
Quote "It may be a "slap in the face" by VITHURAR, for some people who have posted their opinion here."
I dont see why it should do that
Prbly Vithurar will feel I slapped him by saying what I said above
Now quote"Would they take that in good heed and respect, or would they be showing disrespect to that great being?"
Hey man! he is just a character in an epic and says the words that was out into to stabilize the society at the time it was written
but in truth let me tell about a quote
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
From "The Friends of Voltaire", written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall and published in 1906 under the pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre.
Thats the spirit in forums
carry on!

 

[sapr333]

kunjuppu-ji,



i also wonder if Christ's ancestors went to hell bcoz they were not baptized..

.

If you are truly on the pursuit of God, you should attempt to get a clarification.. This is the same question discussed in every mosque and synagogue... But there must be some convincing logical answers.. I would suggest you to search for the answer (may be in google), so that, it will give some more thrust in you , to get to know, who/what that mystical God-head is all about (which the whole mankind is digging out for last 5000 Years)