Haribol Rafal,
Moj maz zainteresowal sie tym co napisales i skomentowal, ale po angielsku. Jak bede miala czas to zmienie i przetlumacze na polski, ale zebys nie czekal na odpowiedz (on napisala to juz tydzien temu ale ciagle nie mialam czasu), to wysylam na forum. Przepraszam za zasmiecanie.
*Jesli ograniczamy sie do stricte-Vaisnava sastr, to nie zacytuje bo
nie natknalem sie. Prasna Marga jest zrodlem sensu Bimba, ktorego uzywam.
Sloka 5 rodzdzialu 24 mówi: 'nastepujace rzeczy maja wplyw na Boska Obecnosc
czyli bimba : [..] (4) wpuszczanie zwierzat takich jak sowy, kruki, orly,
psy, osly, wielblady, swinie, malpy i inne [..] '
--This is all very interesting historical data, however it may or may not be useful to Vaishnavas. In principle, I would agree that having animals
within one's house is unclean, and it if the animals are kept near the
room(s) where the deity is located, then that may affect the purity of the
worship, and Krishna's willingness to reciprocate with the devotee.
However, with all due respect to the Prasnamarga and the other texts you like to quote from, they do not necessarily represent Vaishnava thought on this subject. Anyway, its not so informative to say that one shouldn't keep a monkey, pig or owl in the temple room. Is there really any danger of that happening? Some things are just obvious, and with all due respect to the PS, it seems to have stated the obvious.
Sloka 8 - Prasada to cialo Boga a Bimba to Jego Sukshma Deha (sookshma
znaczy auryczne, w tym kontekscie). Prasada to Adhara a Bimba to Adheya.
Adhara to cos nizszego (chodzi o Murti bez obecnosci), adheya to cos
wyzszego.
--Without knowning whether adhara is a long or short, I can't tell what you
mean by this, and I don't have the Prasnamarga here. Can you say this in
Polish, or make the diacrtics properly?
Jaimini MahaRsi jest precyzyjnym zródlem.
--Again, you quote these texts as if they are authoritative, but are they?
What is the relevance? There are many aspects of Jaimini Maharishi's views
that Vaishnava's do *not* accept, as is the case with many aspects of
Jyotish, Samkhya, Yoga, Ayurveda. If you want to make a strong Shastric
case for this issue, or any issue, then within a Vaishnava context, your
quotes from the Prasnamarga, Jaimini, etc. are not necessarily authoritative
(ie, pramanya). As Vaishnavas, we have certain texts we accept as
authoritative, and certain ones we do not accept. It is not the case that
simply because a book is in Sanskrit, or it is very old, or that it is a
so-called "Vedic" text, that it is acceptable to Vaishnavas. In other
words, Vaishnava discriminate between authoritative and non-athoritative
texts. I could cite many examples of this type of discrimination in the
Bhagavatam, the Gita, or in Vaishnava acaryas such as Srila Jiva and Rupa
Goswamis.
Nevertheless, it is very encouraging to see that you are manifesting some
awareness of the Sanskrit language and certain aspects of the Sanskrit
literature, which is of course a great input into the discussion.
Podkreślam, nie wierzę w ewolucjonizm, nie wierzę, że w pewnym momencie udomowiono krowę. Raczej, jak podają to teksty wedyjskie i irańskie, krowa był z człowiekiem od zawsze. Podobnie jak koń. To moje myślenie magiczne.