31 Jan 2015
Very interesting! But the last bit is not very clear. I wish someone could explain that. - Madhu Seth
[Swami said “The Veda says that your bond to God will be tested at the root level (Dhanena Tyagena…). If you are detached from the root, you are detached from all the worldly bonds. If you have surrendered this root to God, God alone is the every bond for you.”]
The answer is very clear by itself. Money is the basis of all the worldly bonds. Even your life and body leave you if you don’t supply food purchased by money. Everybody gives his or her wealth at the end to his or her children only, which is the strongest bond. The final phase of your life time exhibits your final and real bond. Therefore, the Veda says that the sacrifice of money alone decides your real attachment. Most of the devotees fail in this naked truth. But they want to impress God that they have the final and real ultimate bond with God only since they know that God alone is the ultimate saviour in this world and in the upper world after death. They cannot follow the formula directly but want to appear having followed this formula in the eyes of God. In fact, this point is very interesting! Some people try to put other easier things, which do not involve money as the base to prove their real love to God. For example, one may think that taking cold water bath at 4 A.M. and going to the temple of Lord Shiva in the month of Karthika is the only way to prove your real love to God since such action is very easy for him or her, who may say that if this is followed, the real love to God is proved! This devotee is trying to replace the Veda by his or her statement, which cannot be accepted by any scholar.
Analysis of The Vedic Statement
Even the Puraanaas or the Gita cannot contradict the Veda. Hence, the only way is to misinterpret this Vedic statement. At last, since almost all the people are failing in this concept revealed by the Veda, the highest authority, they have made a small adjustment in the original text by introducing ‘no’ (Na) before the word money so that it can mean that you cannot prove your real love to God by money also! Like this, they have solved the most bothering problem in this way. But, this also did not work out because the Veda is the Scripture that was preserved by recitation from a long time and such pollution is easily rejected.
Scholars of grammar have made some futile feats to indirectly introduce ‘no’ before the word money even though it is not present in the text. Datta Swami has rejected all these false feats of grammarians through sharp logic as you can see in the speeches and here. The scholars said that the word ‘no’ can be put before any word by the process of Adhyahara (to introduce in support of the context). Ex: No Rama, Lakshmana, Sita returned from the forest. Here, the first word ‘no’ can be placed before second, third and fourth words also since none of these three returned. You can also specifically reconstruct the statement as ‘No Rama, No Lakshmana, No Sita returned’. The Vedic statement says ‘by no worship, by no children, by money – by sacrifice only God is obtained’ (Na Karmana...). The word ‘no’ is before worship and children only. The word ‘no’ is not before money. Therefore, this sentence means that you can attain God by neither worship nor by getting children and you can attain God only by the sacrifice of your money to Him. This statement resembles the statement ‘No Rama, No Lakshmana, No Sita, Sumantha (driver of the chariot that took them to forest) returned’. This means that only Sumantha returned and not the other three. Here, you cannot bring ‘no’ before Sumantha since it should have been introduced in the original text itself. This is not similar to ‘No Rama, Lakshmana, Sita, Sumantha returned’ in which you can introduce ‘no’ to the rest of three in uniform way to say that none returned. The Scholars may object that in such case the word money should be associated with ‘of’ and not ‘by’. In such case, only ‘by sacrifice of money’ results. This is overruled since the proposition ‘by’ can be used in three ways: 1) Characteristic (Ittham Bhuta Lakshana). 2) Cause (Hetu) and 3) Instrument (Karana). The word money can be used in these three senses to get the result ‘sacrifice of money’.
1) The sacrifice is characterized by money and not by any other item.
2) The cause or basis of the sacrifice is money.
3) The instrumental item is money by which the action of sacrifice is done.
Apart from these three interpretations of grammar, this can be also supported by the logical interpretation that the word sacrifice needs the mention of the item to be sacrificed. Hence, mere sacrifice without mentioning the item to be sacrificed becomes meaningless. If you say that the sacrifice means to leave everything, the word everything (Sarva) is absent here. Moreover, if everything is to be sacrificed, no need of mentioning specifically the worship and the children. Hence, the sacrifice of money is the result here. You may argue that for some person some other item may be dearer than money and in such case the sacrifice of such other item is required. For ex: A darling may be the dearest for somebody more than the money. This is also not acceptable because if you are sacrificing the money to God without spending any rupee for the darling, she will leave you and she will be no more darling to you because you realize the truth. Hence, money, which is the source of all the bonds sacrificed for God makes God to be linked to you through all those bonds. You may also argue that if you are purchasing God by money, a rich man is supported. This is also rejected because the magnitude of the money is not mentioned here. A beggar can be the highest devotee by sacrificing the only one rupee possessed by him. A rich man having one lakh cannot be dearer to God even though he sacrifices thousand rupees. The sacrifice of money was mentioned by refusing 1) the sacrifice of worships in which also some money is spent and 2) the children to whom the balance of the money is given at the end. Thus, both these words of worship and children are connected to the sacrifice of money. You may argue that the expenditure of money in the worship is linked to God only. But, the worship mentioned in Veda refers only to sacrifice called as Yajna in which the precious ghee is burnt in the inert fire. This is utter wastage of the ghee (money) which is not spent to pacify the hunger-fire that is existing in the devotees or in the human incarnation. In fact, Krishna, the human incarnation, requested the food for Him and His friends instead of burning it in the fire of Yajna. Thus, money wasted in the case of inert items is a total waste and not at all linked to God. All the balance of money is given to the children in lot without any sacrifice to God is a routine procedure of every family member. Thus, there is a link between these three items mentioned in the Vedic statement.
All these arguments are only the ways of over intelligence to escape the basic issue. The best way is to accept this concept at least theoretically in the first stage and try to implement it gradually. God will give you several human births till you succeed in this concept. For others, who do not make such sincere efforts no human birth is necessary in the future.