[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Puraanas
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@braincells.com> wrote in article
<ghenE0unxo.Gzp@netcom.com>...
> 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.
I'd hardly call the evidence flimsy. The Matsya states very explicitly that
it is the Puraanas which glorify Vishnu as the Supreme Lord which are to be
considered saattvik. This is in contrast to other Puraanas which are not
saattvik which glorify other deities.
The meaning seems quite clear. Otherwise, if there was no association
between the Deity/deity being glorified and the status of the Puraana as
saattvik or otherwise, I doubt that the Matsya would have spoken of it in
this matter.
As for their neglecting to mention the status of each individual part, I
don't see that it is practical for any Puraana to explicitly classify each
section of each Puraana in the way you might want to find. Hence, the
Matsya simply states the general principle that is the Puraanas glorifying
Vishnu which are saattvik.
> 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?
Unless I am mistaken, most Vaishnavas do consider both Mahaabhaarata and
Raamaayana to be in the Saattvik group. Regarding the idea of Mahaabhaarata
glorifying Shiva as the Supreme, I must confess some frank skepticism as to
the truth of that claim. Can you provide the verse numbers and Sanskrit? I
don't know if there is a Gaudiiya commentary on this scripture, but I
believe Madhvaachaarya wrote a commentary on it, and it would be
interesting to see what he has made of such a verse, assuming it exists.
I'm guessing he would assume such a statement to be interpolation, which
would not be unreasonable given the fact that it is contradicted later by
the Bhagavad-Giitaa, wherein Lord Krishna condemns the worship of other
deities as avidhi-puurvakam.
> 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.
Interesting. Can you provide the verse numbers, Sanskrit, and translation
(of the explicit statement that the Shiva Puraana was spoken in this
kalpa)? I would like to have a friend look it up and get his opinion on it.
For now, allow me to bring up that other Matsya Puraana quote I mentioned
much earlier:
Agn`eh. s'ivasya maahaatmyam taamaseshu prakiirtyate
Raajaseshu ca maahaatmyam adhikam brahman.o viduh.
Saatvikeshvatha kalpeshu maahaatmyam adhikam hareh.
Teshveva yogasamsiddhaah gamishyanti paraam gatim
Yasmin kalpe tu yat proktam puraan.am Brahman.aa puraa
Tasya tasya tu maahaatmyam Tat svaruupen.a varn.yate
"In the Taamasa kapas (or days of Brahmaa), the greatness of Agni or Siva
is narrated, in the Raajasa kalpas, the greatness of Brahmaa is delineated
as high. But in the Saattvika kalpas, the greatness of Hari is portrayed as
being very high. It is only in those Kalpas that people acquire perfection
in Yoga and attain the Supreme Goal (of Salvation)."
"Thus according to the nature of the Kalpa in which a particular Puraana
was
expounded by Brahmaa, the greatness of that particular deity (having as
predominant one or other of th tree qualities of Sattva, Rajas or Tamas) is
described."
This was quoted by A.S. Raghavan, a Shrii Vaishnava scholar in his book on
Vishishtaadvaita. It makes it quite clear the association between the guna
of the Puraana and kalpa in which it was spoken. So, there obviously is a
conflict between this account and that of the Shiva Puraana. Again, I would
like to see the specific claim in the Shiva Puraana which alleges that it
is spoken in this kalpa.
> 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.
But the plain meaning of the Puraanas is that they are divided into
saattvik, raajasic, and taamasic classes. That cannot be ignored.
> 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.
The problem is that you don't accept any of it literally, while I am
prepared to at least accept some of it as literal. To be more precise,
there are conflicting passages in these Puraanas which glorify one Deity as
Supreme and others as subordinate, at various times putting Vishnu or Shiva
in the Supreme position and putting Shiva or Vishnu in the subordinate
position. I am prepared to accept some of them literally, and reject
others, on the basis of the classification of the Puraanas found within the
Puraanas themselves. On the other hand, you claim to accept them all, but
in reality you are only accepting statements that place a Deity as the
Supreme Lord and rejecting contrary claims that one deity is subordinate to
another. This you do on the basis that none of the Puraanas are to be taken
literally, and that they are merely advertising the dharmic duty of reading
the Puraanas. This idea however is not a part of the plain meaning of the
Puraanas; i am not familiar with any sources within the Puraanas which
exhort us to reject all of their literal meanings and accept them as merely
quaint mythologies designed to teach us dharma. On the other hand, there
are references explicitly pointing out the hierarchy among Puraanas, as
they are divided into saattvik, raajasic, and taamasic classes.
To me,
> it is easy to accept the statements that say the Bhagavata Purana is the
> best of the 18.
Then we agree on something. This is substantiated by both the Bhaagavata
and the other Puraanas. However, it is important to note that the
Bhaagavata is considered sufficient for self-realization. In the opening
shlokas, Shrii Vyaasa quite boldly states ki`m vaa parair "What is the need
of any other [scripture]?" This is right in 1.1.2 where Vyaasa declares the
Bhaagavatam to reject all religious activities which are performed for
mundane ends, and teach only the Highest Truth. We also see that the
Bhaagavatam is important for enlightening people in the Age of Kali:
k.r.s.ne sva-dhaamopagate
dharma-j~naanaadibhi.h saha
kalu na.s.ta-d.rs'aam e.sa
puraa.naarko 'dhunodita.h
"This Bhaagavata Puraana is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just
after the departure of Lord Krishna to His own abode, accompanied by
religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the
dense darkness of ignorance in the age of Kali shall get light from this
Puraana." (SB 1.3.43)
The Bhaagavatam is specifically indicated as the means for enlightenment in
this Age. Taking this and the previous statement into consideration, it is
easy to see that the important issues for understanding Vedanta are to be
found in the Bhaagavatam. Thus, we would not expect Vyaasa to place a deity
in a subordinate position for fear of it causing misunderstanding. Nor
would we expect Him to omit something as important as clarifying that Shiva
and Brahmaa are also forms of Vishnu. Since these deities are seen as
devotees of Vishnu, Vyaasa in His wisdom would certainly have taken the
trouble of explaining "but they are also equal to Vishnu in every respect"
to prevent misunderstanding.
They are what the Mimamsa shastra calls arthavada. They
> are an advertisement of sorts designed to praise the study of that
Purana.
But again, that is not what the Bhaagavatam says. If you say you wish to
accept the plain meaning of the Puraanas, then you cannot possibly
extrapolate this advertisement theory.
> > 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.
But the Bhaagavatam does not make such recommendations. It certainly does
not give any reason to believe that other deities are different forms of
Vishnu. It is quite explicit in stating that Krishna is the Supreme
Absolute Truth, and describes other devas only as His servants, even going
to the trouble of glorifying them as His servants, not as individual
Godheads in and of themselves.
So, if you say that all deities are different forms of the Absolute, and
that you have no problems the saattvik/raajasic/taamasic classification
because some saattvik puraanas have some sections which glorify other
deities as Supreme, then what do you make of the Bhaagavatam, which refutes
the idea that one can worship other deities as the Supreme? What about the
Bhagavad-Giitaa which also does the same? If they are saattvik as you
agree, then they must not be teaching falsehoods. So we then have to decide
which among the saattvik Puraanas is to be taken as the final authority,
and based on the Puraanas, the clear winner is the Bhaagavatam.
The fact remains that one cannot accept *all* the Puraanas and Itihaasas as
literal.
> 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.
Perhaps I have misunderstood, but this seems self-contradictory. You say
that there is only birth after birth, but that the Vedanta teaches oneness
with Brahman. If oneness is what is ultimately real, then I fail to see why
one would continue to experience samsaara with such knowledge, given that
the material world is one of variegatedness and duality - quite opposed to
the concepts of impersonal, undiscriminating oneness.
I also want to point out that this concept is still at odds with what Lord
Krishna has stated: sarva-dharmaan parityajya maam ekam sharanam vrajaa. He
makes it quite clear that the surrender to Him is the goal, not merely
performing one's dharma birth after birth. I will leave aside the alleged
claims that Vedanta teaches some sort of impersonal oneness for now; that
can start a whole separate thread and these messages are getting quite long
as it is.
> Agreed. Though Sanatana Dharma refers to all the Vedic dharmas as the
> entire Veda is nitya and apaurusheya.
Sanaatana-dharma refers to our relationship with Lord Krishna. This is the
only thing that is eternal; material existence and the necessity of
performing regulative sacrifices are temporary. On the transcendental
platform, one automatically acts for the pleasure of Lord Krishna. Again,
Krishna demands our surrender. He also makes many claims that He will
deliver His devotee from samsaara, so there is no scope for believing that
the ultimate goal is birth after birth in the material world with the
rather questionable boon of realizing that it is all one.
> 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.
> [...]
But the emphasis nevertheless remains that Krishna is the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. Remember that the Bhaagavatam quite explicitly does
away with all religious sacrifices that do not lead to the Supreme Goal,
and it does not mention anything about worshipping other devas (except
possibly as the representatives of Vishnu). dharma.h projjhita-kaitavo 'tra
paramo etc. (SB 1.1.2)
If separate worship of other devas was important for self-realization,
Vyaasa would certainly have mentioned it in the Bhaagavatam. However, He
did not do so, in spite of claims that study of other scriptures is not
indicated after study of the Bhaagavatam, that the Bhaagavatam is
sufficient in and of itself for self-realization, etc.
> > 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.
They are statements concerning the Absolute Truth, and are in conflict with
each other. This phalashruti hypothesis does not do away with the conflict
in any way. If the fruits of my endeavours after reading a Puraana are to
attain the Absolute Truth, then the Absolute Truth must be clearly defined
for me. It is not acceptable to claim acceptance of both, as such
"acceptance" would also lead one to believe that both Shiva and Vishnu are
also the devotees of each other.
> I had not brought up the subject of interpolations because I don't think
> Indology has any relevance to religious matters
It has nothing to do with Indology. There are Vedantists also who are
concerned about interpolation in the Puraanas, and I don't think the
sampradaaya of Shrii Shankaraachaarya is an exception. It is an important
issue, and it deserves to be addressed.
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.
While it may be true that saattvik puraanas are not immune from
interpolation, the same cannot be claim about the Bhaagavatam specifically.
I am only aware of two versions of the Bhaagavatam, and unlike other
Puraanas, these two versions contain differences that are quite trivial. In
one word verse, the word kalau is inserted even though the other version
does not have this word specifically but makes clear in a previous verse
that the Kali Yuga is being described. In another place, the Lord is
described as param satyam in one version of a particular verse and as
purnam purusham in the other version. Again, this is quite trivial. Unlike
the other Puraanas, the Bhaagavatam is present in its entirety, and again
unlike other Puraanas, the Bhaagavatam is held in high esteem by many
reputable sampradaayas, even the sampradaaya of Madhusuudhana Saraswati
despite the fact that his conclusions are contradicted by the Bhaagavatam.
Also, the Bhaagavatam is consistent from beginning to end. Finally, it is
in the Bhaagavatam which is Vyaasa's last word on Vedanta realization where
the claim is made that it will be used in the Age of Kali for
enlightenment, and that it would be sufficient in and of itself for
realization of the Highest Truth. Since He is a trikaala-gyaani, I doubt He
would have made such a claim if He knew that there would be significant
interpolation in this text specifically.
Since you admit that the saattvik puraanas have some sections that are
interpolated, you should realize now another reason why any statements
therein describing someone other that Vishnu as supreme will not be taken
seriously. These sections could themselves be the interpolated parts, and
that would make sense considering that the core texts of the saattvik
puraanas (at least according to my understanding) generally glorify Vishnu
as the Supreme. It also makes sense since the Bhaagavatam does not support
such theories of other devas being different forms of Vishnu.
> 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.
Of course, it does not *prove* anything. But for some guidance, we can see
what the great aachaaryas tend to look at, and the fact is that most of the
reputable aachaarayas hold the Bhaagavatam in high esteem. These include
Shankaraachaarya, Madhvaachaarya, aamaanujachaarya, Shriidhar Swaamii, and
Shrii Chaitanya. On the other hand, these same authorities don't seem to
think as much of other Puraanas.
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.
Good. So even you can admit the merits of the Bhaagavatam. You just can't
bring yourself to accept it as the final authority on Puraanic matters.
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.
I don't know if it is unique in that regard, but it is certainly one of the
few that exhibits both consistency and completeness. Maybe the Vishnu is
also present in its entirety. But most Puraanas do have lost sections and
the suspicion of interpolated sections.
> 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.
Shriidhar Swami was a Vaishnava aachaarya; he wrote his commentary on the
Bhaagavata with the idea of making it appealing to advaitins. The
aachaaryas of the Gaudiiya line hold him in high regard, despite the fact
that they have spoken out against advaita or maayaavaadi philosophy. I have
never heard of Chitsukhaachaarya or Nrsimha Ashrama Swami. I do know that
Madhusudhana Saraswatii and Shankaraachaarya held it in high regard, but I
don't think this necessarily makes it an advaitic text either as
Madhvaachaarya also wrote his commentary on it. I would say that it teaches
the conclusion of achintya bedhaabedha which is the Vedanta philosophy of
Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, and hence there are individual passages which can be
interepreted as indicating oneness or difference although neither of these
alone is completely correct.
In any case, I think it is quite easy to show that the Bhaagavatam is not
an advaitic text. I would say that any advaitic interpretation of the
Bhaagavata would be about as convincing as an advaitist commentary on the
Bhagavad-Giitaa, which is to say that people will believe it only if they
want to; not because they think that a review of the evidence necessarily
points in that direction.
> > 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.
But that still does not explain why Vishnu is not also asserted to be the
Supreme at the exact same time that Shiva is stated to be the Supreme. I
tried to point this out to Ramakrishnan over and over again. If both Vishnu
and Shiva are supreme, then it would be misleading for Vyaasa to only
indicate this in some texts and not others. If all the Puraanas can be
accepted on the same level, then one would expect Vyaasa to explicitly say
that both are Supreme, rather than taking turns in presenting one as
Supreme and others as subordinate.
Furthermore, this Smaartha hypothesis still flies in the face of the
multiple statements in the Giitaa to the effect that worship of other
deities is avidhi-puurvakam, that it is motivated by materialistic desires
(kaamais tais tair h.rta-j~naanaa.h Giita 7.20), and it gets temporary
fruits (9.21-9.22) as opposed to worship of Lord Krishna which results in
liberation.
> 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.
It proves no such thing. The omissions are not significant enough to impede
one's quest for self-realization. One can get the appropriate information
from other Puraanas if he is interested, but Vyaasa has already stated that
this is not actually necessary for understanding the Highest Truth (as I
have pointed out before).
Actually, this is an esoteric point, but Gaudiiyas do consider Shriimati
Raadhika to be included in the Bhaagavatam. According to them, mention of
her is done in a very indirect way. I can't remember the exact verse; it's
somewhere in the 10th skandha I think but it's a sort of pun on words that
comes across as a clear reference to her to the Gaudiiya aachaaryas.
However, this is insignificant in this case, because Vyaasa, whom we both
agree is Naaraayana, has stated that this Puraana is sufficient in and of
itself for understanding the supreme truth.
Also, I'm still not clear on what you mean by arthavaada, but I don't think
it applies to the Bhaagavatam. The Bhaagavatam does not claim to be a mere
illustration of dharma; it quite clearly states that it is the means for
enlightenment in this age, and that there is no necessity for other
scriptures. It has nothing at all to do with dharma, artha, kaama, and
moksha, which is the subject matter of many other texts. Rather, it deals
only with Krishna-prema, against which dharma, artha, kaama, and moksha are
quite subordinate.
> 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.
That's true, but I don't think it is relevant here. It goes without saying
that the degradation of Kali Yuga is widespread. I for one can't understand
the behavior of some so-called Vaishnavas who close their ears at the mere
sound of Lord Shiva's name, or who refuse to visit the temples of the
demigods. Lord Chaitanya, who is the sampradaaya aachaarya of the Gaudiiya
Vaishnava sampradaaya did not harbor such sentiments. He did visit the
temples of Shiva and other demigods, but in the mood of a devotee who is
seeking the darshan of another great devotee.
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.
Agreed. I was merely bringing up the point about the Smaarthas in my
community to illustrate the problem that the Bhaagavatam confronts -
namely, the idea of performing religious duties for some purpose other than
the eventual attainment of Lord Krishna's loving service.
> It is enough to simply perform the nitya and naimittik Dharmas. People
who
> do are incapable of moksha but are otherwise blameless.
What do you mean by "nitya and naimittik Dharmas" in this case? If I have
not made it clear, the operative principle behind all dharmas is
satsifaction of Lord Krishna (at least according to the Bhaagavatam). This
is why it condemns separate religious endeavours. It is because all
sacrifices are ultimately meant for His pleasure, as stated in the
Bhagavad-Giitaa, as opposed to simply performing them for the sake of
living a pious life.
> > 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.
The Krishna-kathaa is also a devotional activity, and it is a means to
attaining Krishna prema as taught in the Bhaagavatam. Specifically, it is
one of nine recommended processes, others being hearing, remembering,
serving, etc. Krishna-kathaa is not merely to teach the Dharmik act of
Krishna prema. It is the activity of one who seeks Krishna prema, as well
as the activity of one who already has it. Krishna prema is not merely a
Dharmik act, at least not in the sense that performing various sacrifices
is dharmic. Rather, it is the constitutional position of the living entity,
and the goal he must strive for when he is in the conditioned state. The
example is given there in the Bhaagavatam itself. Naarada became attracted
to Lord Krishna through hearing of His transcendental pastimes. He then
recommended to Vyaasa that the latter make this the basis of the
Bhaagavatam, given the potency of Krishna-kathaa to attract the conditioned
souls to the Lord's lotus feet.
> I do indeed read selectively (as do you)
What an admission! Especially given your remarks at the beginning of this
thread that it is the Vaishnavas who are guilty of selective reading (the
implication being that your tradition does not do this).
and the belief I'm superimposing
> on the Pauranik texts is the doctrines of the Purva Mimamsa.
That's fine, but I hope you realize that that position is far more
difficult to defend than the Gaudiiya one. Purva Mimasakas read selectively
based on what they believe, while Gaudiiya read selectively based on what
is in the Puraanas themselves.
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.
I think it is the Vedas which guide us as to how to act; any tradition
claiming validity must successfully base its conclusions on what the Vedas
teach. We each belong to traditions that have commented on the Vedas, and
thus the mere claim that one or the other is more authoritative simply will
not do. A thorough analysis of the relevant scriptures is necessary to see
whose explanations are more solidly based on the Vedas.
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.
Most sampradaayas consider the saattvik puraanas to be consistent with the
shruti, so this is not an issue. Furthermore, Veda Vyaasa indicates that
the Bhaagavatam is meant to explain the Vedas, and goes out of His way to
indicate its importance in the Bhaagavatam itself. Gaudiiyas would not
place so much emphasis on it if it contradicted the shruti, as they do
revere the Vedas and consider the Puraanas and Itihaasaas to be a part of
it.
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.
That's a pretty bold claim. Needless to say, there are Vaishnava shruti
paramparaas who can argue quite convincingly that the prescriptions in the
shruti DO involve bhakti, or at least the ultimate attainment of it. The
Bhagavad-Giitaa and the Bhaagavatam clarify this. I do not see any reason
in the shruti to doubt the explanations given in the Giitaa or the
Bhaagavatam about the ultimate significance of the duties prescribed in
shruti. That is why we have Puraanas and Itihaasas; to clarify the subject
matter of the Vedas. However, whether or not bhakti is involved in the
shruti is another issue. I am only responding here to claims that
Vaishanvas read the Puraanas selectively. Apparently, we both do, but
Vaishnavas read selectively on the basis of what the Puraanas themselves
recommend. Hence, it is hardly as arbitrary as the Mimaamsaka approach.
Just out of curiosity, do you find any statement in the shruti which states
that the Puraanas can be accepted as allegorical? If it is specifically
stated in shruti that the Puraanas are merely mythological illustrations of
dharmic duties, then I suppose one would have to accept them as such.
However, I am only familiar with them describing the Puraanas as part of
the fifth Veda.
> 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 ;-)
Yes, his approach is quite interesting indeed. In their philosophy, they
don't accept the idea of a karma-kanda portion of the Vedas. Rather, they
interpret all references to demigods in the Rg Veda as being references to
Vishnu only. Of course, this is not so different from the view of other
Vaishnava traditions or the Bhagavad-Giitaa. Even sacrifices to the
demigods are considered to be meant ultimately for the pleasure of Vishnu.
Anyway, Gaudiiyas don't arbitrarily relegate the smriti texts to a
second-class position, so we don't have to go through the trouble of
studying the shruti to come to the same conclusions that the Bhaagavatam
teaches. Still, if you do decide to read his commentary, I hope you put all
your doubts forward on this forum. I would be interested to see how the
Maadhvas defend it.
regards,
-- Krishna
p.s. I saw your home page. After all this talk about adhikaara and so on, I
never would have figured you for a Black Sabbath fan ;-)
