 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
.. stuff deleted ..
How canthe battle between Vasishtha and Viswamitra
be interpreted about to eat or not to eat. Nothing
in any scripture tells me that the fight was about
eating cows. It was about the ownership of the cow
posseseed by Vashishtha. Viswamitra wanted to take
it bey force. Vashishtrah refused.
Viswamitra was a non-vegetarian and ate meat, this is mentioned in
several places in the Puranas. Once he even ate dog's meat when none
other was available. Secondly in the legends of Parasurama, in the
Brahma Purana, it clearly states that the Haihaya king ate cows and in
one place mentions that it was customary in Magadha to eat cows. The
similarity between Vishwamitra's story and Parasurama's story is
obvious.
Secondly Viswamitra was travelling with his army or hunting party when
he arrived at Vasishta's ashram. Once he did, the story goes that
Vasishta couldn't understand why should Viswamitra "take the cow" when
the cow would give him all the food he needed -- milk etc. Viswamitra
was pressed for meat probably because he was travelling with others.
Mr. Tiwari should also know that at the time, there was very little
game around. The Purana describes it as a some sort of a dry spell
for hunting, though it doesn't give a reason. Later Viswamitra was
quite grateful to Trisanku for providing meat for his family when he
was away.
Vishwamitra did not immediately seize the cow, he first offered a
price for it, including his kingdom. When Vasishta refused all of it,
he just couldn't understand Vasistha's obstinate refusal and declared
that since the ashram was part of his kingdom and he was the king, he
had a right to seize the cow (I guess you could call it right to
commandeer).
Parasurama's story is quite similar except the Haihaya king's sons
took the cow's calf in the night and ate it just to annoy him.
Further, this specially for Kunal. His idea that
Vishwamitra was a Shaivite is entirely incorrect.
Nothing to my knowledge tells me that that is
true. On the other hand, Vashishstha, for all we
know was a great bhakta of Shiva. A Shiva Pancha_
Akshara stotra praises Shiva, in which it alludes
to Vashishtha as one of the devotees of Shiva.
That Vishwamitra was a Shaivite is entirely correct. He was the head
priest of Karttikeya and thus the man responsible for developing the
concept of the "pancha tattwa." As Karttikeya is responsible for his
being given the status of a Brahmin, he can be considered to be
primarily Shaivite without much doubt due to the fact that he was a
proponent of the shakti school of thought -- Karttikeya was considered
to be the son of Parvati despite his being born from Shiva's semen,
Ganesa being a direct response of Shakti (Parvati) to Karttikeya being
taken away from them unfairly.
Most learned men at the time studied not simply one philosophy but
others as well. That Vishwamitra owed his Brahminhood to Shaivites is
obvious. However Vasishta may indeed have pursued a combination of
the two schools. But apparently there was great conflict between the
two, and a fierce personal rivalry ensued. Vishwamitra was said to
have turned the Sarswati red with the blood of Brahminical deities due
to feeling discriminated against by them. There are stories where
Vishwamitra was said to be plotting to murder Vasishta and likewise
there are stories where Vasishta was plotting to poison Vishwamitra.
The victor would be Vishwamitra as his became a dominant school at the
time by several historians' account. And of course the relevance of
the "pancha tattwa" to the Hindu sciences should be apparent to all
who understand it.
.. stuff deleted ..
It is said, that Nandi is no small cow. He is very
pwerful, and a great bhakta of Shiva. I have yet
to see a Shiva temple, which does not also have ann
idol Nandi.
Nandi is not a cow, he is a bull and it was a deity founded by sage
Silada who wanted a deity that was beyond the concept of death. It
has nothing to do with the holiness of a cow! The special position of
a cow seems to have emerged at the Sagar Manthan. However, what that
special position entailed -- whether that exempted it from being eaten
is not clear.
The greatest bhakta of Shiva, that is
Shri Ram, is himself in Ramayan described as the
protector of cows. His ancestor, (I think Dilip)
offered a lion to eat himself, when the lion
was almost going to kill a cow. The entire Raghu
Vamsha, starting from Dilip to Ram, were great
devotees of Shiva. It was not by accident. Perhaps,
the reason for their Shiva bhakti, was the fact
that their Kulguru was Vashishtha. Still further,
you will find a lot of Vashishtha gotra brahmins
in N. India, who have Shiva as their kul devataa.
Rama is described as the protector of dharma and Brahmins can and have
often interpreted that or elaborated that to mean protector of cows.
Ram being a Shaivite (at least some Shaivite temples in Bihar claim
that Rama founded them while going to marry Sita) has nothing to do
with the inclinations of his ancestors. Indeed that Vasishta was the
guru of so many of the Ikshvakus probably means that they lived by the
philosophy of the sage Vasishta which continued beyond the lifetime of
the sage himself (Vasishtasamhita?) .
As far as I have read, there is NO major school
iof Hinduism, that has in any sense argued FOR
killing cows. You will have of course all sorts
of variant groups, for a variety of reasons. But
all the three major traditions: Shakta, Shaiva
and Vaishnav, have accorded a great deal of respect
to cow.
Perhaps, the Vaishnavas, have gone further, and
actually most voviferously advocated abstinence
from meat at all. That Shaiva and Shakta tradition
have not so strongly insisted on vegetarianism.
But cow killing is one thing, that all these 3
traditions, have actively discouraged.
Not true, Asuras and Vraityas of northern Bihar and Magadha
respectively were largely Shaivite. Taraka whom Karttikeya defeated
was also a Shaivite. Some asuras even had boons that they be killed
only by Shiva. The Vraityas of southern Bihar did eat cows. The
elaborate sacrifice where Magadha was born has the description of a
cow being set loose to run over the land and then ritualistically
sacrificed. The cow complained saying that certainly the king was not
going to kill her, a cow, a female. The king dismisses the objection
by clearly stating that a killing which benefits others is indeed
proper. Also, that the Haihaiyas ate cows is also apparent. At the
time, religion was fully integrated with cultural tradition, thus
Mr. Tiwari cannot make the claim that no religious school ever allowed
the killing of cows. Shaivism obviously if it did not actively
encourage it did not discourage it either.
In several Kshatriya circles at the time, killing cows and eating it
was quite normal. I'm not sure of how the Nagas felt about it. And
the Kshatriyas tended to become Shaivite perhaps in response to the
Vaishnavas requiring vegetarianism. That the Shaivite tradition
derives from the Naga tradition is obvious due to the naga around
Shiva's neck named Vasuki (a Naga king).
But that Shaivism was prevalent within Kshatriya circles can be seen
by the term "nataraja" which has become synonymous with Shiva. It is
actually derived from "nata" which was a form of Vajramukti or unarmed
combat practiced by Kshatriyas similar to "katas" of Karate. The term
nataka comes from "nata" where the students practiced pretending to be
fighting an opponent. Vajramukti naturally was derived from the
Kshatriya deity of Indra. The Shaivite dance of "Bharat Natyam"
contains many moves related to martial arts and originally may have
been practiced by Kshatriyas. According to Tsing I who travelled to
Bharata around 200 AD or so, Vajramukti was quite a common tradition
in the north eastern regions of Bharata. Interestingly, it was the
moves of Vajramukti which Bodhidharma took to China and transformed
into the Lohan Kung Fu, the first Kung Fu form of Shaolin. And also
according to Chinese legends the Indian Kshatriyas of the
north-eastern region also seem to have discovered acupuncture due to
their experience in warfare -- they noticed that some who acquired
minor wounds from arrows actually became cured of previous ailments.
So they spent some time in prisons experimenting on some prisoners
with knives and needles. Thus Shaivism was quite free to explore
knowledge as Vaishnavism never was and it has since formed much of the
foundation of Bharatiya sanskriti.
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|