Buying Yagyas for the World at Large

No, I mean swamis. Maybe it is not a common greeting but I have seen the pujaris being called swamis, other times they call them "Ayengaru" . I am sorry, I don't know much about the proper terminology , Mr. Bhaskar.

 

Jeez, can someone answer my question? I even forget what it is.

 

i think its cool that a priest would sell their services and i do hope at some some level, priests know the execution of these rituals is crowned by the love in their heart

money is just a means to quantify the energy exchange or the quid pro quo

 

in my use of prostitution, it simply means the selling of a service and does not imply any corruption.

the concept of dakshina implies that the priest will be satisfied with whatever commision they are paid whereas in the modern world, folks are looking for a guarantee of an upfront commision and so the fee of what the service will cost which is a bit of a stretch from the dakshina idea and so capitalism as bbb implies.

still, no problem in my book as those in such a business will hopefully remember they will price themselves out of business in they don't bring full integrity, love and consciosness to the marketplace

and too, hopefully such services will be provided to those who cannot afford full price

 

There's the rub.

Also it's worth remembering that it was priests who had the idea of killing Jesus - perhaps beause he was seen as a threat to their very lucrative business, and perhaps because he made clear what is the value of money in relation to spirituality when he threw the mony changers out of the temple.

Pity more of his so called followers don't share in his attitude.......

 

the sad part of this all is its costing more and more to gain spiritual liberation and to love god that soon, only the rich people will be free from sin and able to love god

 

Sorry, here's my answer to the question:

Yagnas such as these, which are for personal benefit or for the benefit of immediate family/friends etc. aer performed only occassionally. However, the daily prayers and pujas are incomplete without shanti mantras, which are invocations for peace on every level - personal, societal and universal.

The idea is that praying for the world is a daily regular thing. Praying for oneself is an occassional event.

And even in the personal yagnas, they are always complete with krishnarpanam or shivarpanam - dedicating the entire ritual to God, which is the same as dedicating it to all beings, at least in Hinduism.

 

That's a very south Indian thing. Of course, the general use of the title Swami, at least in Tamil Nadu, is not restricted to Swamis or brahmins, but is used as a means of showing respect to any person. I know people who call everyone from autorickshaw drivers and fruit sellers to advaitin renunciates swami. I have been called that myself on occassion. But the title as such refers to sanyasis only.
We may call anyone Sir, but it is only those who have been knighted that officially hold the title.
The titles iyengaru and iyer are references to Brahmin subcastes.

 

Every year, around rakhi time, after upanayanam, brahmins change yagyopavitams, this is done around a fire as a fire sacrifice. This is done for promoting good thoughts and deeds around the world.

You can perform this or take on other ceremonies to promote welfare of the world, or you could give your money to the orphanage.

 

I think you could look at the Chief's words in another way.

I took him to mean that if one recieves some spiritual gift which others don't recieve, it should be available to all regardless of their ability to pay money.

An example from my own lfe: For many years I have been studying and consulting the Chinese I ching, and I'm now quite proficient. I occaisionally do reading for other people, but I would never charge money.
I could do so - I could set myself up online very easily doing readings and presumably derive some income from doing so (which in my situation would be useful).
However, I feel this would be wrong.

Money unforunately creates false values and a false ethos. It is very easy for a wealthy person to become self-satisfied and concieted (even whole nations fall into this).
Perhaps Jesus words about the difficulty of a rich man in passing through the eye of a needle have some significance here.

It is not what one has, but what one is in esence which counts.

If one wants to be a tool in the hands of the divine, for the divine to act through you, it's no use insisting on payment.

An extreme example of this type of thing can be found in the medieval Catholic church's practice of the selling of indulgences. The idea was that you pay money for a special indulgence which frees one from the effects of sin, or else pay for someone else, a relative for example.
I am always amused by the little rhyme associated with this practice, attributed to the cardinal who travelled around europe selling such indulgeneces: "as a coin in my coffer rings/ a soul from purgatory wings".

Similarly, it was customary at that time for the rich to live a disolute life of pleasure and even violence, and seek to alleviate the effects by paying for a church to be built.
Famous example comes in Shakespeares's 'Henry V', where after the victory at Agincourt, Henry promises to set up a chapel and pay for priests to recite prayers of thanks every day.

This has obviously got more to do with superstition than any spiritual reality.

 

So my question was not answered due to people getting hung up on buying selling of services of purohitam. That aside. AND, big AND, if one believes that purohitam can make some sort of difference with their rituals. THEN, big THEN, does anyone think that there is merit in sponsoring big yajnas, towards whatever end?

Has anyone here kept up with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? The real reason I ask this is because he feels that his groups of pundits, which he has in some 24 countries now, can perform functions to avert danger (Heyam Dukham Anagatam-avert sadness before it arises), but it requires sponsors.

The reason it requires sponsors is that someone must make the -sankalpa- or intention.

So here's the rub. Fuck it, I forgot now what I was asking.

 

Chodpa, I actually did answer your question, perhaps you missed it.

 

Here in Britain, one no longer has the choice to keep up with the Maharishi - he's pulled out of the UK evidently because Blair got re-elected after starting the Iraq war. There's an old thread here in this forum about this.

Perhaps though he simply wasn't raking in enough cash....and his 'natural law' political party has been very far from a success.

If people like the Maharishi had any true understanding of magick (under which heading falls all types of ritual) they would know that the format of any ceremony can be changed. What was good yesterday may not be good today.

 

In fact, the priest himself/herself can be the yajaman and perform the sankalpa.

 

I guess then that is good karma. If you have a hindu spin on this subject, it could be said that Henry V was trying to alleviate his bad karma by doing some good karma- providing a church for the community.

 

I think a private chapel tucked away in a monastary cloister would probably have been more what Henry would have had set up.
But I can see where you're coming from.

The thing is that from the medieval point of view in the west, it was intended more to thank God for granting them victory against all but un-assailable odds. It was believed that God oversaw combat, and a false knight could never win against one who was true. A nice romantic idea, but I doubt things are really like that.
And in the case of Agincourt, the victory, although spectacular, gained absolutely zero for the english side in the 100 years war with France. Within a few years everything had been reversed. And it was actually more a combination of holding good ground, the weather on the day, and the english longbow that gave them the victory, rather than some special grace of God.

 

Jedi-


I've just been thinking more about this, and although it's off topic, I will say a bit more.

You could say that there is a kind of direct causal relationship between the plays of Shakespeare like Henry V, and the British Empire, and hence also modern India which was born out of the raj period.

Shakespeare was no doubt one of the world's greatest ever writers and poets - I think that is hard to deny. But in many of his plays, there is a hidden political agenda - hidden that is, from those who see the plays today without detailed knowledge of english history. The truth is that Shakespeare was very much engaged in propaganda and social engineering on behalf of his masters, the Tudors. It was under the Tudors that the whole idea of the english nation was forged.
Previously, under the medieval Plantagenet dynasty, england was much more seen as integrated as a part of Catholic europe. With the tudors, came a new order - a national church, with the monarch at the head, and a much greater sense of separation from the rest of european culture. A new sense of national identity was formed, and Shakespeare put his talents at the service of this somewhat questionable agenda.
This was coupled with the rise of english sea power, which led to the defeat of the Spanish Armada, and gave england superiority on the sea for centuries after that. It was this, coupled with the greed etc of the brits that led to the whole edifice of the British empire.
As a modern british person speaking to an Indian, all I can do is apologize - although my own ancestors played no part, as they weren't english. At leat India got good railways, and a good army and civil service structure from the colonialists.
It can be interesting sometimes to look into these interconnections between things which seem un-related on the surface.

 

In my opinion, we all seem to act according to what we deem "right" or "wrong" in a given situation without knowing for sure what types of long term (or even short term sometimes) consequences may occur.

Therefore, we cannot judge our ancestors based on the consequences of their actions. Ofcourse, we may never know whether they were doing things for the sake of "duty" or whether they were filled with "compassion" or whether they were filled with just hatred against the people they feared as being "savage"- we may even never need to know. Their intent has no bearing on the collective state of the world today.

So, there is no need to think british had done something wrong by conquering the world IMO.
As I am writing this, my mind keeps referring to this quote about the "three modes of material nature" from bhagavad gita. Sometimes I can't help but think that we are all half asleep when we are acting. We do things like robots, being affected by what has been done or said in the past (in our own lives), without realizing the dominoe type phenomenon that is taking place.
Again, the brits who had tried to dominate India and other nations , and the local leaders who had succumbed to them were similarly acting, so why apologize?

 

You're right in general. Probably the British Empire was one phase of the globalization process which still goes on today.

Still, that doesn't excuse the way in which it was done. It is that which I regret, although of course I don't personally feel bad about it.
And I agree also that we are like robots -

 

So at any rate, since Katrina hit New Orleans I spent close to ten thousand dollars to have various priests, both Vedic and tantric, both Hindu and Buddhist to performs rituals to draw better energy to New Orleans. Then we elected Bobby Jindal, first Indian American to ever win Governor in the US. There are other positives going on here. It's hard to say what the results would be. I just hoped it would help things here with a new fresh dharmic start.