Religion is Poison

[Mana]

Namaste,

An additional thought, for your consideration:

Does "kalakuta" translate well to "poison"; how might we consider religion in relation to kālakūṭa. Could we for example rephrase the initial statement to read: "Religion is kālakūṭa"?
If so, perhaps we could then consider the etymology of this word, in the context of the initial statement.

Kind regards.

[Avyaydya]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namast�


There is merit in what you offer... religion as a word, is rooted in latin re (again) + ligare (bind, connect). So, what do we get from this ? to bind one back again. But to what ? To the Supreme.

This mission has been missing. But it is not the religion's scriptures that have been remiss; it has been its application and that falls on man.

iti śivaṁ

Namaste Yajvan,

Interesting thought. And how does one bind to the Supreme? It would seem to me that a Supreme God can not be the all pervading Brahman. Brahman neither binds nor can be binded.

Also I get the impression you overlook that the word "religion" is much older than monotheism which was only forced upon the people in the Roman empire around 350 AC. It is later Christians (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) that gave this modernist interpretation. Please explain how the word religion could refer to binding with the supreme God if people did not yet believe in supreme God? Or else what is your definition of a Supreme God?

And do you believe that polytheists have no religion if they do not believe in a Supreme God?

[RVR]

Namaste Yajvan,

Interesting thought. And how does one bind to the Supreme? It would seem to me that a Supreme God can not be the all pervading Brahman. Brahman neither binds nor can be binded.

Also I get the impression you overlook that the word "religion" is much older than monotheism which was only forced upon the people in the Roman empire around 350 AC. It is later Christians (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) that gave this modernist interpretation. Please explain how the word religion could refer to binding with the supreme God if people did not yet believe in supreme God? Or else what is your definition of a Supreme God?

And do you believe that polytheists have no religion if they do not believe in a Supreme God?

During Vedic period, people were worshipping nature and were not attached to any particular God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigvedic_deities

While Rudra (Later it become 'Shiva") and Vishnu are mentioned in Rig Veda few times, the main deities mentioned several times are mostly Nature Worship like Sun, Varuna, Vaayu, Agni etc.

Nowhere the term Hindu appears in our Vedas and Upanishads. It is only the invaders who called us as "Hindus". Invasion by Greeks started way back in 500 BC. There was no religion in India right from Vedic period and only Sanathana Dharma was practiced. In fact both Gowthama Buddha and Mahaveer Jain failed to establish religions in India. Just to differentiate us from the invader's religions, we were called as Hindus.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Namaste Yajvan,

Interesting thought. And how does one bind to the Supreme? It would seem to me that a Supreme God can not be the all pervading Brahman. Brahman neither binds nor can be binded.

Also I get the impression you overlook that the word "religion" is much older than monotheism which was only forced upon the people in the Roman empire around 350 AC. It is later Christians (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) that gave this modernist interpretation. Please explain how the word religion could refer to binding with the supreme God if people did not yet believe in supreme God? Or else what is your definition of a Supreme God?

And do you believe that polytheists have no religion if they do not believe in a Supreme God?

Let me offer a few thoughts...
The notion of religion. This word is not from saṃskṛtam but of Latin decent. My offer was etymological in nature or nirukta¹.

You mention brahman neither binds nor can it be binded. I'd also add it also cannot be bound. It cannot be individualized to a thing. Yet is the cause ,and is all things that is seen or un-seen. Even saying cause suggests a beginning. And It (tad ekam) has no beginning no end just by this humble definition of boundless. Yet to the paśu¹ who is the bound being, certain words and expressions are offered to communicate the point. That is, we are stuck with words that are bound, to express the boundless. This is the pickle of being within the human condition.

You ask me to explain how the word religion could be used in a time when people did not believe in a Supreme God.
I think this opens up a can of worms I am not capable of closing. Yet I have been taught throughout history that wise walked on this earth. That sākṣātkāra (intuitive perception , realization) was not quarantined to any restrictive place . So, there were those that knew of Being and lived it in their daily lives. Hence it is my deduction that the truth of Reality fell from their lips to the people that would choose to hear it (mumukṣuvta).

iti śivaṁ
words

• nirukta - explanation, etymological interpretation we know as one of the 6 vedānga-s (limbs of the ved); nirukta is rooted in vac - that which uttered , pronounced , expressed , explained , defined
• paśu or paśúnā - any tethered animal, singularly or collectively
  • 'a herd '; 5 kinds are enumerated , " men , kine , horses , goats and sheep "
  • paśutā - the state of an animal
  • paśutva - (with māheśvara-s and pāśupata-s) the being the individual soul
  • paśavya - belonging to a herd; a herd or drove of cattle

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

During Vedic period, people were worshipping nature and were not attached to any particular God.

I see this (quite) differently... The wise knew of how the Supreme expressed itself in nature, hence the relevance. They also chose to use terms that people would understand. How does a seer (ṛṣi ) express the infinite truth (ṛtam) in words ? Their brilliance was to use the sound forms (words, and meter) that also had deeper meaning.

If we look to the chāndogya upaniṣad 1.4.2, it tells us that the deva-s covered themselves with chandas. Because they covered themselves with it, chandas is called so. That is, the meter (beat) the ṛṣi-s offered the Vedic mantra-s in also had a more significant meaning other then timing; they ~saw~ how sound and form could come together in meter.

And just a finer point that I consider is the puruṣasūktam from the ṛg ved (10.90); a very intriguing hymn.
om sahasra̍śīrṣā puru̍ṣaḥ sahasrākśaḥ sahasra̍pāt
sa bhūmi̍ṁ viśvato̍ vṛtvā atya̍tiṣṭaddaśāṅgulam ||

What is called out in the śloka is sahasra = 1,000 . This says puruṣa has 1,000 heads, a 1,000 eyes and 1,000 feet. Now does He really have this?

It is another way the seer (ṛṣi nārāyaṇa) of this great hymn tells us puruṣa is everywhere and even beyond that . He says that by saying beyond the span of 10 (daśā) fingers (aṅgula). When people say 'beyond' is also can mean transcend.

This is how the seers took the subject matter of their actual experiences and put it into terms that would ~hopefully~ help the
muṇḍaka (the shaven ones) or saṁyāsin or even the adhikārin¹ get a hint of Reality (vastu-vṛtta-anusāreṇa).


praṇām

1. adhikārin - 'fit for'; one who is fit/ready ripe for the revelation of the Self.

[Sudas Paijavana]

Yajvan,

I see this (quite) differently...

Me too...

The wise knew of how the Supreme expressed itself in nature, hence the relevance.

The concept of a Supreme, Almighty, One True God, Everything Else Is Heathenry, One Supreme, is not definitively expressed in the Rica-s.

They also chose to use terms that people would understand.

That's odd, because the BrAhmaNa-s express that the Shri Gods love the mysterious: an expression on how the Rica-s are not understandable to the average mind - that the Rica-s are not even for those that can't understand it. They are full of terms that are as complex as complexity can get. Even the ones that are used for "people that would understand" have tons of variations in meaning.

How does a seer (ṛṣi ) express the infinite truth (ṛtam) in words ?

Rta-m is the order of things, the logic of all that is. Satya-m, on the other hand, is this "infinite truth" - that which are the proofs of that Rta-m, that logic and order of things.

"Inviolable are the holy laws of Varuna." - R.V.1.24.10

Using the paradigm you have set forth...Shri Varuna is the Supreme, Almighty, One True God.

If we look to the chāndogya upaniṣad 1.4.2...

Rationally speaking, I would never use Jnana-Kanda to explain Karma-Kanda.

And just a finer point that I consider is the puruṣasūktam from the ṛg ved (10.90); a very intriguing hymn.
om sahasra̍śīrṣā puru̍ṣaḥ sahasrākśaḥ sahasra̍pāt
sa bhūmi̍ṁ viśvato̍ vṛtvā atya̍tiṣṭaddaśāṅgulam ||

What is called out in the śloka is sahasra = 1,000 . This says puruṣa has 1,000 heads, a 1,000 eyes and 1,000 feet. Now does He really have this?

It is another way the seer (ṛṣi nārāyaṇa) of this great hymn tells us puruṣa is everywhere and even beyond that . He says that by saying beyond the span of 10 (daśā) fingers (aṅgula). When people say 'beyond' is also can mean transcend.

This is how the seers took the subject matter of their actual experiences and put it into terms that would ~hopefully~ help the
muṇḍaka (the shaven ones) or saṁyāsin or even the adhikārin� get a hint of Reality (vastu-vṛtta-anusāreṇa).

The power of the Sukta-s are the power that we give to them each, individually.

As per the Law of Shruti and as per the ordinances of Apaurusheya, the Purusha Sukta is not greater than any other Sukta. Yet, this Sukta gets put on a pedestal continuously and quite often vigorously. This very Law requires one to acknowledge the other Sukta-s as equally important and of equally divine nature.

The Purusha Sukta is not superior to Sukta-s dedicated to scores of Gods.

While a hierarchy of Gods is scripturally valid, depending on which scripture and theological schools of thought one utilizes...a hierarchy of Sukta-s is unthinkable.

Either way...how do Hindu monotheists come to terms with the following?

“Dear friends, glorify nothing else, so no sorrow troubles you. Praise only mighty Shri Indra.” (R.V.8.1.1)

“O’ Gods [<-- this includes "Purusha"], not one of you is small, none of you is a feeble child: All of you are verily great!” (R.V.8.30.1)

I always get stuttered responses, nothing ever that is cohesive nor reasonably logical.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

That's odd, because the BrAhmaNa-s express that the Shri Gods love the mysterious: an expression on how the Rica-s are not understandable to the average mind - that the Rica-s are not even for those that can't understand it. They are full of terms that are as complex as complexity can get. Even the ones that are used for "people that would understand" have tons of variations in meaning.

Rta-m is the order of things,

There are a few things I see differently...
There is no doubt that the bṛhadarāṇyakopaniṣad (kūrca brāhmaṇa section) and the aitareya upaniṣad - 1st adhyāya, 3rd kanda (or chapter 1 part 3) , gives us a hint to this answer...
Both upaniṣad-s inform us parokṣa priya iva hi devaḥ - that is, the devatā are fond or like (priya) to be addressed in a certain manner
(iva) , parokṣa or secretly, indirect, accordingly (hi).

Yet when the ṛṣi-s offer us their insights or cognitions they are quite profound ( I choose this word vs. mysterious). That is, they are able to communicate on multiple levels:

• abhidhā or the conventional meaning i.e. the literal meaning
• lakṣaṇā or indirectly via sign, symbol, inference.
• vyañjanā or the figurative expression more intuitively offered some may call implied indication , yet is on a higher level of meaning.

This to me is most noteworthy as to their brilliance... as it meets the requirement for 'indirect' and profound in one swoop. Yet at the same time is able to offer the paśu some additional insights for their appreciation.

This notion of ṛta ( ṛtaṃ ) as 'the order of things' . The nominative case definition is 'truth in general'. Yet we will see the definition, to name just a few , as:

• proper , right , fit , apt , suitable , able
• enlightened , luminous ( for obvious reasons I think)
• truth personified
• right , duly , properly
• promise , oath , vow
• the sun
• son of manu cākṣuṣa if we use it as a proper noun
• son of vijaya ( again proper noun application)

I am very much attracted to how patañjali applies it in his yogadarśana, but that will take us off the mark.

praṇām

[Sudas Paijavana]

Yajvan,

Yet when the ṛṣi-s offer us their insights or cognitions they are quite profound ( I choose this word vs. mysterious). That is, they are able to communicate on multiple levels:
abhidhā or the conventional meaning i.e. the literal meaning
lakṣaṇā or indirectly via sign, symbol, inference.
vya�janā or the figurative expression more intuitively offered some may call implied indication , yet is on a higher level of meaning.
This to me is most noteworthy as to their brilliance... as it meets the requirement for 'indirect' and profound in one swoop. Yet at the same time is able to offer the paśu some additional insights for their appreciation.

I don't see the Rica-s as insights. They are purely revelations of the Shri Gods. Apart from that, I don't disagree that there are various methods that can be undertaken to come to certain "truths" on what is "said" in the Rica-s.

This notion of ṛta ( ṛtaṃ ) as 'the order of things' . The nominative case definition is 'truth in general'. Yet we will see the definition, to name just a few , as: ...snip...

There will be many applications in terms of definitions for a particular word when digressed. For example, "go" will mean anything from cow all the way to light or rays of various Aditya-s. However, I'm strictly speaking about it in the sense of the metaphysical - the manner you applied it regarding to how the Rishi-s express Rta-m. As far as I know, there is no revelation in the Rica-s using Rta-m as "Purusha" or even "Tad Ekam" interchangeably. If I recall correctly, even the DevatA-s [including "Purusha"] are subjected to Rta-m. The only case that differs from this is where Varuna is revealed as Rta-m - and sometimes, Rta's Friend. But, Varuna is rarely applied in Jnana-Kanda as BrahmAn - which I find to be very interesting.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

However, I'm strictly speaking about it in the sense of the metaphysical - the manner you applied it regarding to how the Rishi-s express Rta-m.

I do not comprehend your use ; that is, I do not see a difference between the metaphysical and how our seers express the truth a.k.a. ṛtaṃ. That said, I am not asking for any additional information or explanation. I am fine where my understanding lies, and I will respect your point of view.

iti śivaṁ

[Sudas Paijavana]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



I do not comprehend your use ; that is, I do not see a difference between the metaphysical and how our seers express the truth a.k.a. ṛtaṃ. That said, I am not asking for any additional information or explanation. I am fine where my understanding lies, and I will respect your point of view.

iti śivaṁ

Namaste,

Interesting. And, I hope the following adds more to your understanding:

r̥téna yā́v r̥tāvŕ̥dhāv
r̥tásya jyótiṣas pátī
tā́ mitrā́váruṇā huve

-R.V.1.23.5