13 Oct 2015
Shri Surya asked some questions sent by some intellectuals, which came into the light through the website.
1) In the scripture God said that which lives and moves around you shall be your food. In such case, how can you say that the non-vegetarian food is a sin? And also the Muslims eat meat. So? - Bruno Berardinone
Shri Swami Replied: There are several angles in giving answer to this question. The first angle is that the point need not be valid because it is mentioned in the scripture. There is no guarantee that the scripture is maintained pure without the insertions by some persons, who have selfish motives and like to support their sins since they cannot control themselves from doing such sins. The non-vegetarians visiting Shirdi Sai Baba propagated that Baba was also a non-vegetarian and this is to get support for their uncontrollable practice. Another way of support is to quote the statements from the scripture in wrong way of interpretation or sometimes the statements were not genuine as they were introduced by some mischievous person. You should accept the scripture only when the logic (Yukti) radiating from your intellect and the experience (Anubhava) of the inner consciousness ratify the scripture. The wrong interpretation or wrongly introduced statement of the scripture is used by the selfish sinners like the guns put on the forehead of a person asking him to sign the will. Such a signed will is not real will because it was not signed in full freedom. The person should be convinced without the scripture-gun. A hero is really appreciated if he wins the heart of the heroine by his purely personal merits and then tells at the end that he is the son of the king. If the hero does not have any personal merit, he will introduce himself at the very outset that he is the son of the king. If the heroine is a good girl, she will refuse such a hero. If the heroine is a prostitute, she will immediately jump forward to marry the hero simply because he is the son of the king. Similarly, a true scholar will not be influenced by the quotation from the scripture. If the other person is also a similar sinner, he will immediately jump forward to praise such quotation from scripture! The commentary of Shankara is the most sacred and beautiful because the commentary always projects the points with logical arguments in various angles, which are the personal merits of the point. After convincing your heart and intelligence through logical analysis of the concept, the quotation from the scripture is exhibited as a supporting evidence only. Even if you quote the scripture in the beginning, you should forget it for sometime and proceed to the sharp analysis of the point. The first method of explanation (quoting the scripture at the end) is better and hence the commentary of Shankara is always appreciated by several scholars. Lord Dattatreya also belongs to this type of preaching only, which is indicated by His walk followed by the dogs. His walk is the preaching by Him and the dogs are the scriptures (Vedas). Shankara is the incarnation of Lord Shiva and Lord Shiva is Lord Dattatreya Himself. Hence, you can find the uniform way in both. An ordinary scholar always quotes the scripture in the beginning and his explanation follows. This reminds us the people walking with the tied belts in their hands following their dogs running before them. Your faith to the scripture is appreciable provided the scripture selected by you is genuine. Unfortunately if the quoted scripture by you is not genuine or if you are captured by its wrong side interpretation, the problem comes. Hence, the scripture should be under the control of your analysis like your dog.
The scripture is of two types. 1) Scripture said by God (Shruti) and 2) Scripture said by human beings within the limits of their capacity of knowledge (Smruti). It is said that the second type of the scripture always shows variations (Smrutayo Vibhinnah) because the human beings vary with different lines of conclusions and logistics. But, all these authors of the second type of scripture (Smruti) follow the first type of scripture without any difference in that aspect. They differ only in their interpretations. Such scholars are respectable since they are faithful to the scripture told by God. But, there are some clever selfish persons, who try to quote the scripture to support their sins without verifying whether such supporting statement is genuine or not.
The first type of scripture is said to be valid because God said it. But, there is no proof that God said the scripture because God is unimaginable. Such God gets identified with a human being and reveals His knowledge to the world through such selected person like Krishna, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Mahavir etc. It is quite possible that the human being might have said the scripture and such scripture cannot be declared as the word of God even in the case of genuine human incarnation. For example, Parashurama, the human incarnation of God, addressed Rama as a petty fellow before him. Such statement of Parashurama is not from the God component but is from the human being component existing in the human incarnation as medium. It is only the word of a human being, which should be identified by your sharp analysis. When this is the case of a genuine human incarnation, you need not allow the pseudo-human incarnation without the test of analysis. Hence, every statement of the scripture must be subjected to thorough analysis so that we can separate the milk and water mixed with each other. Therefore, no statement of the scripture can be taken as authority because we do not know whether the statement is from God or from the human being. When the human being speaks, based on the merits of the speech, we can decide whether it is the word of God or word of a human being.
A human being gives a statement. We do not know whether the human being is God in human form or the human being without God. You should not decide God in human form through miracles because even demons perform the miracles. The only identification of God in human form is the divine knowledge that is emitting from such human incarnation to guide every human being in the right path. The human incarnation also performs miracles, but not as an exhibition as done by a demon. Based on the necessity and requirement that is decided by God (not by us), the miracle is exhibited by the human incarnation spontaneously without any effort. Miracle is only an additional identification like the Khaki dress of a police officer. We see incidents in which some thieves also wear the police uniform and cheat the public. We also see some powerful officers of the police department (CID) without uniform. Therefore, the appointment order as the police officer is very important like the spiritual knowledge that directs the people in right path and not mere miracles, which act like uniform. God disowns the miracles even exhibited by Him because He does not like to be identified in that angle since clever devotees always try to exploit Him for their selfish benefits. The miracles are very dangerous because the devotees do not progress in the spiritual line, who are habituated to exploit the miracles for their selfish ends. The devotee is expected to serve God without any selfish motive. The human being component in the incarnation is also spoiled with ego due to the praise of the surrounding selfish devotees. Thus, a miracle is always kept hidden by the God since God always likes to help the human beings (including the human being possessed by Him) and not to spoil them. The main identity of the human incarnation is the spiritual knowledge (Prajnanam Brahma), which is like the genuine appointment order of a police officer. The appointment order may also be fake and thus, the knowledge exhibited may be proved wrong in your analysis in the case of a pseudo-human incarnation. Hence, whether it is the appointment order or uniform, the analysis is always essential everywhere.
The point here is that mere statement from the scripture cannot be taken as the authority unless the logical analysis and discussion tests it as in the fire test and acid test for gold. After establishing your point through logic and experience, you can quote the scripture. It will be like a true police officer having appointment order and also appearing in uniform. When the logic and experience are absent, the quotation of scripture will be like a pseudo-police officer claiming as the police official just by wearing the uniform. The receiver of your point should be convinced at the very outset through your logic and the scripture is only just supporting evidence. Your logical point is like your signature and the scripture is like the official seal stamped that certifies the signature.
In the knowledge, truth is very important. The truth is enlightened by the torch of logic. When you utter a statement from the scripture, the statement may have different meanings. You may take the statement in one angle projecting one type of meaning. But, the same statement can be projected in another angle to give a different meaning. The plants carrying on the grains and fruits are also living items only. If you sit in a field, the crop plants possessing grains move around you due to wind. Similarly, if you sit under a tree, the branches around you bearing fruits may also move due to wind. In such case, why don't you apply your statement to such situation and say that the grains and fruits are also the meaning of the statement of the scripture? The statement has the possibility of another meaning. The Veda said that the animal should be cut (Manyuh Pashuh), which means that the beast nature in you should be cut. Hence, the possibility of several interpretations can also give different meanings for the same statement. Now, again, the logical discussion and analysis are necessary to establish the correct interpretation. If you take the ultimate experience, you just experience the pain of the bird or animal cut. The plants also are living, but cannot be equalized to birds and animals having more expression and development of mind that gives the experience of pain in death to them. Based on this aspect of pain, the plants are exempted since their mental faculty is almost undeveloped to experience the pain. Such statements are generally created and introduced into the scripture by certain persons to support or cover their sins. Such statements are caught in the analysis and the weightage of scripture cannot be maintained in such cases. Once, Swami Vivekananda lectured in Chennai and delivered a concept in His speech. Some scholar from the audience arose and told that Shankara told opposite to that concept. Immediately Swami Vivekananda told that if it is so, Shankara must be wrong. The point here is that the scholar should have argued giving the logic to contradict the concept given by Vivekananda. Without the logic, he has taken the support of Shankara in opposing Swami. Even Shankara Himself opposed such quotations. Somebody told that the concept of Saamkhya philosophy was told by the human incarnation Kapila. Shankara did not agree to that argument because simply it was told by Kapila. If the same point was projected with sufficient logic, Shankara could have thought about it. It may be an interception of somebody's statement or that statement of Kapila may be genuine that might have been presented in a different angle of interpretation. Without considering all these aspects, simply following the scripture blindly shows that the person preaching and the person listening to it does not have their faculties of intelligence in the awakened state. All old is not gold and all latest is not perfect. You have to examine both and find out the truth (santah parikshya...). In one context, old may be correct and latest may be wrong. In another context, it may be vice-versa. Still, in some other context, half of the old and half of the latest may be correct. Everything should be decided by logical discussion only and not by blind following or blind rejection. Arjuna questioned Krishna at every stage and discussed deeply about the truth. Arjuna did not go back to put any type of question on the statement of Krishna. This means that your analysis need not be spontaneous in the time of the debate, but also can be projected later on after remembering the whole concept and analysis again and again. This aspect is well maintained in the discussions through writing and not through mere oral debates. In oral debates, points may miss or may not strike to the brain, which may flash after some time only. In olden days, this was the defect present because the discussions were always oral since the recording technology was not well developed.
Whatever may be the religion, God is only one and hence, the sacred scripture coming from God must be also the same. The same pain is experienced by the animal or bird whether the butcher and the eater belong to this religion or that religion. This concept is universal irrespective of time, place, culture and religion. This is the fundamental topic of the universal spirituality.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★