What is the use of Logic in vedanta?

There are some stataments in Vedanta which is normally contorted or distorted according to one’s own design / desire. One such statement we take up here:

Today we will see the statement from katopanishad : “naisha tarkena matirapaneya”

Naisha – na esha – never this

Tarkena – through the logic

Matir – knowledge

Apaneya is the tricky word. Aapneya means gain and if it is taken as apaneya – destroy / wrongly understand (redirect)

The others who have not understood the Vedanta and/or who have no introduction to the school of logic (tarka) use as an instrument to condemn logic.

But if one has no use of logic, vedanta will only be like any other cult. And the shruti talking about the manana and nidhidhyasana will not just be impossible but erroneous too.

This statement only warns us from getting into the useless tarka or non-shruti based tarka. This is what bhagavan bhashyakara states in his sadhanapancakam – “dustarkad suviramyatam shrutimatas tarkonusandiyatam” – get away from the wrong logic and follow the logic accepted by the scriptures.

Since this is about the self-luminous Self, all that is needed of the logic is to negate the wrong notions about the Self. But, not understanding this, if one tries to use the logic to understand the Self or to negate the Self, then, for him this is the teaching – it cannot be gained by logic. Because through logic, we only try to reach a point that is attainable through the intellect. The self is beyond it and which illumines the intellect. And, even through hundreds of logic, we cannot also negate the existence of the Self, which is I.

“asan eva sa bhavati, asad brahma iti veda cet” – he will verily be inert (non-self-conscious, non-existent) if he understands the Brahman (Self) as asat (inert /  non-existent).

“asti brahma it ced veda, santam enam tato vidur iti” – if one understands the Brahman as existence, then the knowledgable one understands / proclaims him to be a knower of Self.

And in this same taiteriya upainshad, the process of vichara is shown. And vichara presupposes logical faculty.

And to prove this point, bhashyakara says in the bhashya of th above mentioned statement, that this truth can be understood only if is heard from a knowledgable and logical Master.

Who else is better than the logician to understand the fallacy of the logic. Any logic can be fit with an upadhi dosha, they know.

And the logicians are not kept alive by vedantins as a sparring partner for the debates, but to help us understand the nuances of the discussion better.

Did Brahmins eat non-veg in vedic Sacrifice?

We will come to the desire propelled food habits, like eating non-veg ‘mamsa’, by the Brahmins, in a later post -  this I promised in my previous post. We will discuss this now.

The shruthi gives some injunctive ‘vidhi’ statements for the fire sacrifices performed with cow, goat, horse, sparrow etc.; now some people are of this wrong idea that like in the last Soma yaga, here too since the offerings are to be partaken by the preists, they concur that the Brahmins are allowed to take non-veg or they used to take non-veg (probably, taking the shruti as a Pramana for this escapism).

But, the truth is, even for the people who are allowed to eat the non-veg food, the shruti lays a code of eating only the five animals with five nails ‘panca panca nakhaan bhakshyaa’. This is to control the desire propelled ‘ragata prapta’ food habits.

Son, in the yaga too, like the soma rasa only, if at all, a small bit can be had. And definetly, this yaga is not performed as an excuse for eating non-veg. The shruti not olny lays the rule for the cattle, but also what portion of the cattle should be used, and how it should be cut. The cattle should be cut, and after removing the heart, tongue ‘agre avadyati atha hrdye atha jihvaa’. And the left out portion what will we do, cook for eating, if be said, No, because that is a cattle given for the yaga purpose. There is nothing like leftover, the other unwanted portion should be put in the pit which is dug for throwing all the wastes in the yaga.

But, there is a statement in the shraadha prakarana for using the non-veg food as an offering to the ancestors and be served for the Brahmins who are representative for those ancestors. This is true. But, the smriti texts categorically negate using non-veg foods in any of the karmas in kali yuga.

Then we cannot perform the pashu yaga, if be asked. We understand it right. Then the shruti statement will become useless (if one statement is useless, the others can also be useless, like the previous one. With this kind of logic the others will destroy the pramanatva of the scriptures).

For this reason, the great saints like Sri Madvacharya etc. proposed a new way of performing the yaga. By making the form of the required cattle with dow paste filling its inners with kumum mixed necessary body parts (like, heart, tongue etc) the yaga should be performed. And never with the real cattle.

Is Soma-Rasa intoxicant ?

Someone was asking a question, apparently he had seen some television program in US about the Soma creeper, which says that it is not available in India and is seen in South Africa, and the important point is it is an intoxicant.

Now, let us take this for inquiry.

We can understand the shruti saying very peculiar specification of a cow for buying this creeper, it should be red colour eyed, one year old 'pingankshi ekaahanya somam krinati'  etc. Probably, this is because it is (soma) an imported itemJ.

Forget about it, since that is not the topic of interest for us here; we are not going into it.

Now, let us take the point of it being an intoxicant. There are many contradictory points to negate this idiotic idea.

Can it be an intoxicant? The shruti says, one should not drink intoxicant 'suraam na pibet'. Now, can we take this like the killing of the cattle 'pashuvada' in the sacrifice?. That is, the shruti says don’t trouble any living creature 'na himsyad sarvaa bhutaani' and it itself asks us to do the cattle sacrifice 'pashum aalabet', sparrow sacrifice 'kapinjalaan  yajet' etc. The logicians will explain this as the torturing 'himsa' karmas performed inside of the sacrifice is acceptable, and will not produce any demerit 'papa'. In the same way, the intoxicant ‘suraa’ taken outside of sacrifice produces sin and not the one taken in the sacrifice. No, because the soma juice is not an intoxicant.

a.       First the soma creeper is crushed and the juice is extracted. This juice is used in the fire sacrifice and only the left over is taken, and that too only a small portion.

b.      When even If it accepted that the soma left over will be enough to get drunk (which is not the case, we can only lick a drop), you will not be spending a fortune to get the others drunk J. How so ? the shruti says the the master/performer ‘yajamaana’  who spends for the sacrifice will have to take the soma in the last after the pundits who perform takes ‘yajamaana panchamaa bhakshyaa’ etc. are proof for this.

c.       If said, since this is desire propelled ‘ragata prapta’, therefore it cannot be negated by scripture; it is doing its best by controlling the intake. So, seeing the expenditure the fellow will curtail his desire. Then it will be a joke, if the person wants to get drunk he will not listen to any one, leave alone the scriptures which are just meaningless words for him. And, he will only be spending the money in buying a drink. We will come to the desire propelled food habits, like eating non-veg ‘mamsa’, by the Brahmins, in a later post.

d.      And he will be growing the creeper in abundance, remember demand -> supply.