[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Puraanas



H. Krishna Susarla <susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu> wrote in article
<ghenE0qtrE.1Gt@netcom.com>...
> 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.
> 

You are claiming a lot based on very flimsy evidence.  You certainly cannot
extrapolate all this from the excerpt of the Matsya Purana you are quoting.
 Seeing as the Puranas have taken the trouble to tell us which of their
number are sattvik, rajasik, and tamasik, it is rather curious that they
neglect to mention that individual parts of each belong to gunas too.


>   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.
> 

Except the Mahabharata does glorify Shiva Bhagawan as the supreme.  When
Arjuna is seeking the Pashupata astra for instance.  And in the other
itihasa the Ramayana, Shri Rama worships Shiva Bhagawan before building the
bridge to Lanka.  Is the Ramayana Sattvik or Tamasik?

> 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.  
> 

The problem is the Shiva Mahapurana explicitly says it was spoken in this
kalpa so their seems to be a contradiction.  As the passage you quote
doesn't explicitly say that tamasik puranas have to be from another kalpa,
it is more reasonable to assume your interpretation of that quote is
flawed.

> >: Anyway, the point here is that there is a clear hierarchy between
> Puraanas,

I don't see any such point at all and I don't think you've made an adequate
case for their being such a point.  So I'm going to go with the plain
meaning of the Puranas themselves.

> 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.
> 

I accept the Puranas in their entirety probably more strongly than you do. 
I don't take every single word literally, but then neither do you.  To me,
it is easy to accept the statements that say the Bhagavata Purana is the
best of the 18.  They are what the Mimamsa shastra calls arthavada.  They
are an advertisement of sorts designed to praise the study of that Purana.

> 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.
> 

I don't have a problem with that as we've already established that these
sattvik Puranas recommend the worship of other deities too.

> 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. 

You are indeeed mistaken.  It is the Purva Mimamsa that explains the nature
of dharma and its practice.  For one who follows its injunctions, there is
only birth after birth.  So the Uttara Mimamsa or Vedanta teaches the
knowledge of the Atmas oneness with Brahman which is Moksha.

> 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.
> 
Agreed.  Though Sanatana Dharma refers to all the Vedic dharmas as the
entire Veda is nitya and apaurusheya.

> 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 when Sattvik Puranas like the Garuda Purana guide to to perform the
Panchavaktra puja of Shiva Bhagavan "Bhuktimuktikaram param" (Achara kanda
adhyayas 21-23) we should do that too.
[...]

> 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. 

Sure they can if you accept the various laudatory passages are phalashruti
not injunctions.

> 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.
> 

I had not brought up the subject of interpolations because I don't think
Indology has any relevance to religious matters but since you brought it
up, it should be noted that sattvik Puranas are hardly free from
interpolations.  Take the Padma Purana which Vaishnavas are fond of quoting
from.  This also exists in many recensions.  There is even a Jain Padma
Purana!  However people even from different sampradayas and different parts
of India are generally in agreement on the core texts of the Puranas.  We
take it on faith they have come down to us from Vyas more or less intact.

> 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 story of Shakuntala is an akhyana which appears in the the Mahabharata
and several of the Puranas (including I think the Vishnu Mahapurana but I'm
not sure) but I was refering to the play by Kalidas.  The point is people
write commentaries on what interests them and the mere number of
commentaries doesn't prove an awful lot.  No doubt the Bhagavata Purana
makes a good subject for a pauranika commentary because as you pointed out
it thouroughly covers all the subjects a Purana should contain and is not
as disjointed as some of the other works.  Howeverit is hardly unique in
this regard.  I have a copy of the Chandi Patha (which is part of the
Markandeya Purana) with 11 commentaries.

Also I think it is interesting to note how many people felt the Bhagavata
Purana was amenable to Advaitic interpretation.  As well as the well known
commentary of Shridharacharya, Chitsukhacharya is supposed to have written
one (which no longer survives) and so did Swami Nrsimha Ashrama.  Swami
Madhusudan Saraswati spoke highly of the Bhagawata Purana and as you
mentioned, Shankaracharya quoted from it, something he would hardly do if
he felt it was a Dvaita text.

> 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.
> 

I can see why you might have trouble with this but for an Advaitin the
answer is easy.  Shiva Bhagawan and Vishnu Bhagawan are equal.  As are
Bhagawati Durga, Ganesha Bhagawan, and Surya Bhagawan.  We Smartas worship
all five.

[...]

> 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.
> 

Well, I've already mentioned the significance of arthavada passages.  The
fact the Bhagavata Purana contains omissions proves we cannot rely on it
alone as we would not have all the information we need.

[...]

> 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). 
> 

As a Smarta who lives mostly among Vaishnavas I have first hand experience
that Krishna prem is hardly the foremost concern amongst all those who
claim to be Vaishnavas.  However this kind of talk is rather pointless.  In
the Kaliyuga the number of people who fall short of their ideals (those who
even have any ideals) is great.  Let's instead look to the best rather than
the average.

It is enough to simply perform the nitya and naimittik Dharmas.  People who
do are incapable of moksha but are otherwise blameless.

[...]

> But the bottom line is that in both cases,
> devotional service involves *activity,* and its authenticity is judged
> according to shaastra.
> 

[...]

> 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. 

Not really,  As you say above, this devotianal service is an activity.  The
Krishna katha teaches the Dharmik act of Krishna prem.

> 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). 
> 

I do indeed read selectively (as do you) and the belief I'm superimposing
on the Pauranik texts is the doctrines of the Purva Mimamsa.  Founded by
Maharshi Jaimini and other Rshis of the Vedas (The word Mimamsa occurs
several times in the Vedas to describe the debates between the Rshis on
matters of Dharma.)  Having the inquiry into Dharma as its speciality, it
alone is the guide to how we should act.  Maharshi Jaimini says that Smrti
(which includes the Puranas) is not an authority in itself.  It only
posesses authority on account of it being based on Shruti.  In the event of
a conflict between Shruti and Smrti, Smrti is overruled.  Any act mentioned
in Smrti which is not mentioned in the Shruti is optional.  The Vedas
enjoin a whole series of rites which do not include bhakti (at least not in
the sense you believe in) therefore devotional service is optional.  Any
attempt of a Smrti text to say otherwise is overruled.  

As a side note Madhva knew this argument which is probably why he wrote a
commentary on the Rk Samhita trying to show that it taught bhakti.  Next
time I go to the library, I'm going to try and see if I can find this.  It
would be an interesting read--just to see him attempt the impossible ;-)

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar@braincells.com]  I will choose.-_|\ free will
Consolidated Braincells Inc.                          /     \         
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/   -)==Perth=Amboy=>*.--._/  o-     
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy                                   v      McQ!
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.