[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Puraanas
Sorry it took me so long to get back with you on this. I was having a busy
exam month when you first posted it, so I sort of filed it away and almost
forgot about it.
Jaladhar Vyas wrote:
>The Skanda Purana which is tamasic contains the Satyanarayana Katha and
>Vasudeva Mahatmya. The Naradiya Purana which is sattvik contains a stotra
>to Ganapati Bhagawan where it says Bhakti to Him results in Moksha. Do
>you accept these various Puranas are sattvik, rajasik, or tamasik as a
>whole or only in various parts? If as a whole the Satyanarayana Katha one
>of the most popular rites of Vaishnavas in Gujarat should be labeled
>tamasik. If in parts, which parts?
If you take a look at the Matsya Puraana quote again, you will see that it
has the answer: those Puraanas which glorify Vishnu as the Supreme Lord are
saattvik. So, if we infer from the quote above the general principle, we
must conclude that the subject matter concerning Vishnu as the Supreme Lord
is what is the basis for classifying something as saattvik.
It is true that Puraanas as a whole are classified as saattvik, raajasic,
and taamasic, even though there may be individual sections within which do
not fall within the same category. The mere fact that a Puraana is
considered taamasic does not mean that it is completely invalid, and no
such claim is made by Gaudiiyas. It does indicate, however, that the
Puraana as a whole can not be of interest to one who is desiring the
highest goal of liberation.
Thus, while the Skanda Puraana may be taamasic, this is not to say that the
Satyanaaraayana Katha necessarily is.
And where does the Mahabharata fit
>into this? It is on the same level as the Puranas and contains verses
>extolling Shiva Bhagavan and Vishnu Bhagavan.
Merely praising Lord Shiva is not a grounds for classifying something as
taamasic. The Bhaagavatam also contains verses glorifying Lord Shiva -- as
a devote of Vishnu. It does not, however, attempt to glorify Shiva as the
Supreme Lord, unlike the Puraanas falling in the taamasic category.
>: This is in Matsya Puraa.na (53.65, 68-69)
>:
>: "A history is called a Puraana if it has the five defining
characteristics;
>: otherwise it is called an Aakhyaana. The saattvik Puraanas primarily
>: glorify Lord Hari; the raajasic Puraanas, Lord Brahmaa; and the taamasic
>: Puraanas, Lord Shivaa and Durgaa, along with Agni. The Puraanas in mixed
>: modes glorify Sarasvatii and the Pitaas."
>While this may settle the issue for some Puranas, the Shiva Purana
>posseses the 5 lakshanas and belongs to this kalpa.
I think you misunderstood. Having the 5 lakshanas is the basis for
classifying something as a Puraana (as opposed to an Aakhyaana). But this
does not say anything about whether or not it is in the saattvik, raajasic,
or taamasic category. I believe it is well accepted that the Shiva Puraana
belongs in the taamasic category, and thus, if we are to believe the Matsya
Puraana, it is therefore a Puraana spoken by Lord Brahmaa in a previous
kalpa.
>: Anyway, the point here is that there is a clear hierarchy between
Puraanas,
>: and if one wants to claim they are all on the same level, one is going
to
>: run into trouble.
>
>Only if one is committed to untenable assumptions.
Such as what? I for one see no way that any Vedantin can truly claim to
accept all the Puraanas in their entirety. If one truly accepts all the
Puraanas, then one must accept the Bhaagavatam as topmost among Puraanas.
As I have already pointed out, the classification of the Puraanas exists
within the Puraanas themselves, and thus any attempt to put them all on the
same level would itself be based on selective reading.
>: The Puraanas themselves solve this problem by pointing
>: out the classification.
>
>All you have proved is there is some sort of classification. You have not
>satisfactorily explained what the practical upshot is for someone who
>wants to know Dharma.
Well, what do you suppose it means then to classify some Puraanas as
saattvik or taamasic? We know from scripture that the saattvik mode is most
conducive to real knowledge: sattvaat sa~njaayate j~naana`m (Giitaa 14.17).
We also know that the saattvik mode leads to realization of the Absolute
Truth: sattva`m yad brahma-dars'anam (Bhaagavata 1.2.24). There is no doubt
that sattvik Puraanas are therefore intended for those who seek the highest
goal.
You may be having a hard time with this because your concept of dharma is
different from mine. I could be mistaken, but I get the impression that
your concept of Vedanta is simply that one should perform his various
dharmic duties birth after birth, and that there is no higher goal than
this. Am I mistaken? Please clarify. For us, the dharmas we perform are
meant to bring us to the point of sanaatana-dharma, which refers to our
relationship with Lord Krishna. When Krishna states sarva-dharmaan
parityajya... etc. it is meant to instruct us that surrender to Him is the
final goal, not simply performing dharmic duties as some kind of end in and
of itself.
Thus, one who is aspiring for the topmost goal (as opposed to seeking
elevation to higher planets in the material world, for example) should turn
to the saattvik puraanas for guidance. And among saattvik puraanas, it is
the Bhaagavata Puraanas which is especially revered because it cuts to the
chase of dealing only with the goal of life -- devotional service to
Krishna, as opposed to any other religious principle or sacrifice that is
not directly relevant for realizing this goal.
>: As far as Gaudiiya Vaishnavas are concerned, other
>: Puraanas exist for those who might be inimical to Vishnu.
>
>It would seem odd that works designed for people inimical to Vishnu
>Bhagawan would praise Him.
Not really. Since the purpose of all of the Vedas is Krishna/Vishnu, then
we must expect that even the taamasic and raajasic puraanas must also
contain some correct information that can point the sincere seeker towards
Him. That way, even someone who is not interested in Vishnu will ultimately
have to read about Him if he tries to read the taamasic and raajasic
puraanas only.
>: They provide religious principles and some kind of world-view for such
>: persons so that
>: they can do some pious activities and eventually come to the level of
>: worshipping Vishnu as Supreme.
>
>
>: They can make whatever claims they want. But, what is the reliability of
>: the scriptures which they quote to support such claims?
>
>They are Puranas written by Maharshi Veda Vyas. That's their seal of
>reliability.
The mere fact that something is written by Veda Vyaasa does not make it
immune to interpolation. Besides, this does not even address the obvious
inconsistencies between the Puraanas, a fact which is well acknowledged by
all and is probably why Vedantists tend to be cautious when dealing with
the Puraanas. If one Puraana portrays Shiva as the devotee of Vishnu (and
Vishnu as the Supreme Lord), and another Puraana says exactly the opposite,
they both cannot be correct. There is no doubt that interpolation has
occurred in at least some of the Puraanas. I have heard, for example, that
the Bhavishya has over a hundred different versions which are extant.
Surely they cannot all be the same Bhavishya Puraana which was authored by
Vyaasa.
>: How many aachaaryas
>: have written commentaries on the Shiva Puraana or Devi Bhaagavata, for
>: example? Not many I would wager.
>
>I don't see what that has to do with anything. More commentaries have
>been written on Shakuntala than any Purana.
It's relevant because most Puraanas are not highly regarded by most
Vedantists. And when a Vedantist chooses to comment on a Puraana, he almost
invariably goes to the saattvik ones. It just goes to show that most
commentators realize the problems in basing a system of philosophy on
certain Puraanas, such as the Shiva or Devi.
I am not aware of any highly regarded commentaries on the Shakuntala. I do
know that each of the four Vaishnava sampradaayas has a commentary on the
Bhaagavatam, and even Shrii Shankaraachaarya in his Sri Prabhodasudhakara
wrote on some of Lord Krishna's liilas as recorded in the Bhaagavatam's
10th skandha. What highly revered aachaaryas have commented on the
Shankuntala Puraana (actually, I think that one is a secondary Puraana, but
I'm not sure...)? Probably none of any consequence.
The bottom line: not all Puraanas are created equal. Even if you ignore the
Puraanic evidence which substantiates this, you need only judge the
Puraanas themselves on the basis for their content. Once again, the
Bhaagavatam will win hands down, since many other Puraanas lack internal
consistency. Consistency is a very important quality to look for in a
scripture, don't you think?
>True but there are Puranas of the other two gunas which meet the 5
>lakshana test which is all the consistency that's needed.
As I said before, the 5 lakshana test is for determining whether or not it
is a Puraana. This is what is stated in Matsya Puraana. The mere fact that
something has the 5 lakshanas cannot be used to justify putting it on the
same level as other Puraanas, given the threefold classification into
saattvik, raajasic, and taamasic.
Furthermore, the 5 lakshana test will not erase the fact that some of these
Puraanas lack internal consistency. The Linga Puraana in one places
declares Shiva to be the origin of Vishnu and Brahmaa. But the same Puraana
in another place declares Vishnu to be the origin of Shiva and Brahmaa.
They both cannot be correct, and merely claiming that it was written by
Vyaasa will not change this.
And even
>Bhagavat Purana has omissions here and there. In its description of the
>puranas it doesn't mention the classification by guna at all.
It doesn't have to, because throughout the Bhaagavatam we are taught that
knowledge of Lord Krishna as the Supreme Deity is correct knowledge. Thus,
we are provided with plenty of information by which to infer the relative
validity of other Puraanas.
And Radha
>who plays such an important part in some Vaishnava sampradayas isn't
>mentioned at all.
This omission is not a fault. According to Gaudiiya Vaishnava doctrine,
Raadhaa's relationship with Lord Krishna is a very confidential subject
matter, and it cannot be easily understood by conditioned living entities.
Hence, the lack of any explicit mention to her in the text is meant to
prevent misunderstanding.
Besides, the fact that the Bhaagavatam is the topmost Puraana does not mean
that one must ignore all other Puraanas. It is true that among scriptures,
one need only study the Bhaagavatam to get the knowledge necessary for
self-realization - such is stated in the opening verses of the Bhaagavatam
itself. However, far from inducing us to arbitrarily ignore everything
else, this is simply meant to remind us that the Bhaagavatam is the last
word on philosophy. Thus, if another Puraana presents a conflicting world
view with that of the Bhaagavatam, then the former must be rejected. It
would be unscholarly to accept the other Puraana and reject the
Bhaagavatam, just as it would be to claim that both views can be accepted.
Therefore, if a classification scheme for the Puraanas is presented in the
Matsya or Padma, it can be accepted if it is not contradicted by the
Bhaagavatam. The same goes for information regarding Shriimati
Raadhaaraani.
>Dharma consists of various actions. Some are to be done (vidhi) and some
>are to be avoided (nishedha) But a good part of Veda and Puranas don't
>deal with commands. Are they then useless? No part of the Veda can be
>considered seless by an Astika. So the Mimamsakas say these statements
>are arthavada or statements in support of Dharma. Some of them explain
>the purpose of a command or prohibition. Some are a form of "advertising"
>if you will to encourage people to do or not do certain things.
The use of the Vedas and its prescriptions lies in their utility in helping
us to advance to the highest goal of life - Krishna prema. Hence, Gaudiiya
Vaishnavas don't say that they are useless. However, the problem is that
many Vedic sacrifices are used for less worthy goals - such as elevation to
the planet of Indra for the enjoyment of heavenly delights (as mentioned in
the Bhagavad-Giitaa, ninth chapter). Some people simply follow the
regulative practices and pride themselves on their ability to follow them
and their relative piety vis-a-vis other Hindus of lower caste. Such is
sadly the case among many Smaarthas, for example (believe me, I know, as I
was born into a Smaartha family and have first-hand experience with this
sort of sentiment).
This is why the Bhaagavatam begins with a condemnation of all religious
principles that are not intended to achieve love of Godhead. Religiosity
that is simply intended for sense gratification cannot be useful for us in
the long run, as any attempt to simply improve the quality of our material
lifestyles will ultimately yield temporary benefits at best. When one
understands that vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedya.y, then and then alone do
the regulations prescribed in the Vedas have meaning.
>: So you see, the supreme dharma is declared here to be that which leads
to
>: bhakti. All other forms of religious principles or work which does not
lead
>: to this point is simply considered useless.
>:
>
>Yes but that bhakti involves _doing_ things. It is not enough to simply
>believe in Krishna Bhagavan. The idea is the bhakta will be extremely
>rigourous in his practice of Dharma because he believes it pleases
>Bhagawan.
What makes you think that the Vaishnava idea of bhakti involves inactivity?
Of course bhakti involves *doing* things. Specifically, it involves doing
things to please Lord Krishna. In the beginning, these activities are
guided by the rules of scripture so that we can learn what does and does
not please Him. The saadhana-bhakta performs devotional service according
to the regulations and is motivated primarily by the desire to do what is
considered correct. Eventually, he may progress to the stage of a
raaganuga-bhakta, whose devotional service is motivated by spontaneous
attraction to the Lord. But the bottom line is that in both cases,
devotional service involves *activity,* and its authenticity is judged
according to shaastra.
>: Furthermore, the idea that stories praising different deities is "just
>: there to praise dharmic acts" is also refuted by the Bhaagavatam itself,
at
>: least in the sense of the word dharmic that I assume you mean. In
chapter 5
>: of the first skandha, Naarada describes how by hearing Krishna-kathaa,
he
>: gradually got free of ignorance. It is also stated:
>:
>: na.s.ta-praaye.sv abhadre.su
>: nitya`m bhaagavata-sevayaa
>: bhagavaty uttama-s'loke
>: bhakti bhavati nai.s.thikii
>:
>: "By regular attendance in class on the Bhaagavatam and by rendering of
>: service to the pure devotee, all that is troublesome to the heart is
almost
>: completely destroyed, and loving service unto the Personality of
Godhead,
>: who is praised with transcendental songs, is established as an
irrevocable
>: fact." (SB 1.2.18)
>:
>
>This is a perfect example of the kind of advertising I'm refering to. The
>purpose of verses like these is to teach the Dharmik duty of reading the
>Bhagavat Purana. One finds similiar verses all over the place in the
>Puranas. In fact there is a name for it: phalastuti.
The purpose of this verse is not to simply teach the "dharmik duty of
reading the Bhaagavatam." Please read it for what it is. This verse is
stating quite succintly that one can achieve loving service unto the Lord
by hearing the Bhaagavatam; and loving service to the Lord is everywhere
declared to be the highest goal within the Bhaagavatam.
I must point out again that this verse refutes your theory that the purpose
of Krishna-katha is simply to teach dharmic acts by example. The purpose of
Krishna-katha is to purify the listener and help him achieve Krishna-prema.
This is exactly what happened to Naarada Rishi, and that is why Vyaasa
includes this information.
Where in the Bhaagavatam do you find a verse stating that the utility in
hearing Krishna-katha is solely in learning to perform dharmic acts? That
may sound good from an impersonalist standpoint, but it is not supported by
the Bhaagavatam itself.
It seems to me that the only way you can reconcile the inconsistencies in
the Puraanas is to claim that these scriptures are meant to teach dharma by
example, and thus the stories do not need to have any objective validity.
You can believe that if you wish, but you have to realize that this belief
is simply being superimposed upon the Puraanas themselves, and it is not
supported by the Bhaagavatam. Thus, in order to claim that all these
Puraanic stories are simply mythologies meant to teach dharma, you have to
do some selective reading yourself -- by ignoring the verses which clearly
state that some of these stories have special significance (as you did
above).
>: Without a doubt, the importance of hearing stories of Krishna and His
>: exalted devotees is established as one of the primary means by which we
in
>: Kali-Yuga can attain the supreme goal.
>:
>
>Note: "one of."
In fact, the other goals also involve devotional service specifically
directed to pleasing Lord Krishna. You may have heard the famous verse
"shravanam kiirtanam... paada sevanam... aatma-nivedanam" Hearing is
important, but so is kiirtanam. That's why the Brhad-Naaradiiya Puraana
states harer naama harer naama harer naamaiva kevalam/ kalau nastyeva
nastyeva nastyeav gatir anyathaa// which states without a doubt that the
*only way* to achieve the highest goal is chanting the names of Lord Hari,
which necessarily involves both hearing and glorifying.
regards,
H. Krishna Susarla
U.T. Southwestern Class of '99
http://www.swmed.edu/home_pages/personal/krishna/
(my views are my own)
"Don't try to see God, but act in such a way that He sees you."
---- Srila Bhaktisiddhanta
Saraswati Gosvami Prabhupada
