[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Why Paramparaa? (was Re: Animal killing and Soul merging condemned)
In article <4frkmr$bv6@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>It is indeed possible, just as it is possible that other verses attributed
>>to PP exist only in smarta or Shaivite communities, etc.
>
>At laaassst! I am glad you agree with me. So there is no question of claiming
>puraanic superiority - neither by the Vaishnavaas nor the Shaivites nor the
>Smaarthas. If you admit that you believe in Vaishnavism because you FEEL it's
>right, I won't and can't argue. But, as you very aptly observed, different
>versions say various things and you can't claim puraanic superiority by
quoting
>only those which support you.
>
>There is nothing to prove your version is right other than your own belief.
So
>you can't use that to justify bashing Samarthas, Shavites or any other
>tradition and then claim that the puaanaas justify only your sect. I hope all
>misconceptions have been sorted out now.
What I like about using the paramparaa versions of scripture is that you get a
very consistent picture of the Vedanta. Ultimately, I think that people who
are sincerely interested in the Absolute Truth will look for consistency,
rather than a hodgepodge. Just recently I was having an e-mail conversation
with an advaitin who was trying to come up with all sorts of alleged
inconsistencies in the Bhagavad-Gita. The purport of his speculation is that,
because of its supposed contradictions, we have to avoid accepting the literal
statements of the Gita and instead accept advaita. I have been told on more
than one occasion by various people that the Vedic literatures are
inconsistent with each other, and hence in order to resolve the
inconsistencies, we have to accept advaita, which states that everything is
ultimately one.
However, this is a problematic approach. First of all, advaita simply states
that all the gods are various saguna forms of the nirguna brahman. Simply
accepting this theory does not explain why one saguna form is sometimes
portrayed as supreme to the exclusion of others. For example, in the
Bhagavad-Gita there are very clear statements to the effect that Krishna is
the Supreme Lord, and all other devas are subordinate to Him. The statements
are so crystal clear that there can be no question of them in the Gita. But
some netters have observed that one can find statements in the
taamasic/raajasic Puranas (or nonparamparaa versions of the saatvik texts)
which portray Krishna as subordinate to other devas. Why this contradiction?
The advaitins say that ultimately everything is one, and the existence of any
contradiction in who is/is not supreme makes us obliged to accept their
theory. But it is not all clear to me why such an inconsistency requires this.
When you think about it, the advaitin theory does not explain away such
inconsistencies, it simply diverts your attention away from them. Why is one
saguna form sometimes portrayed as supreme, and sometimes portrayed as a
devotee of the supreme? It makes no sense, even from the advaitist point of
view.
The second problem with the advaitist approach is the lack of reverence for
scripture inherent within it. If you call something a scripture and say it
comes from God, then that means it is faultless. Any perceived faults can only
be due to our own ignorance. Some would call this fanaticism, but I call it
common sense. I have very little respect for a philosophy which has to
establish itself by questioning the validity of the very scriptures it claims
to venerate. The whole point of calling something scripture is that it is to
be taken as is, without us superimposing our own ideas on top of it. The same
version of the Bhagavad-Gita is accepted by all major schools of Vedanta, and
it clearly proclaims Krishna to be supreme to the exclusion of all other
devas. The bottom line is, if a person really respects the Gita (rather than
just claiming to do so), then he will follow the Gita's instructions and
become a devotee of Krishna, not some other deva.
Now, a lot of people will claim that this is unreasonable. They will say that
in Hinduism, all gods are supreme and everything is okay. If someone is simply
interested in Hinduism, then I suppose that attitude is fine. But if someone
is interested in the Supreme Absolute Truth, then he can't settle for that
kind of relativism.
A friend of mine said it best when he observed that Hinduism has become like a
jacket that people put on when they want to show it off and then take it off
when it becomes inconvenient to them. I get the feeling that a lot of people
are interested in calling themselves Hindu simply because that is the culture
they were born into. This often manifests itself as the desire to learn about
one's culture, read various texts, etc. But another characteristic of this
attitude is a lack of interest in being held to any common set of moral
principles. What many Hindus (and indeed, many people of other religions as
well) want is the feeling of *being* religious without the concomitant
inconveniences that that requires. As a result, they don't like to be told
that there is any one understanding that is correct (the implications of such
an idea would be that they have to practice some sadhana regularly); they want
to believe that ultimately there are many interpretations and that each
interpretation is just as good as every other. Again, this is fine for the
majority of people whose interest in religion is superficial. But there will
always be a small minority of people who want more than flag-waving and other
shallow demonstrations of their bodily identity. Such people will have
realized the futility of living in the material world, and they will want to
learn how to get out. These people want something Absolute, something which is
correct for everyone. They don't want to be told that everything is good and
fine, and that no matter what you believe, it's just *your* interpretation,
etc. etc. The Supreme *Absolute* Truth means that it is the same for everyone.
Those who have lost interest in material pleasures will naturally look for
something else to believe in... something that is Absolute.
No why am I bringing all of this up? The unfortunate fact is that I (and many
other netters, in fact) have noticed a very disturbing moral and cultural
crisis among Indians, both here and in India. A culture that was once purely
spiritual is now becoming increasingly materialistic due to exposure to the
West. I was born into a fairly pious smaartha braahmin community, and I have
noticed that even within it there are very few who actually practice any kind
of regulative principles. Many of the 2nd generation kids have given up the
traditions of their ancestors and have taken to meat-eating, alcohol drinking,
and even premarital sex. Many of these kids even eat cow meat. There is very
little respect for the elders from the children, and why should there be? Even
many of the elders have themselves abandoned their culture. Why is all this
happening? There are so many Hindu groups and temples nearby, so one would
think that such gross materialism would not be observed.
Well, the bottom line is that none of these people have heard any reason why
they should practice any sadhana. The system of learning philosophy we
encountered as youths was that someone (usually preaching some form of
neo-advaita) would give his philosophy, and then he would say in so many words
that ultimately this was just *his* interpretation, and that in reality many
different "interpretations" were good and fine. So, when materialistic people
hear this, they will assume that the decision to practice that philosophy
is simply optional, and that they can go on with their materialistic sense
gratification. If the speaker of a philosophy does not have the conviction
that it is the correct path, which will actually lead to the blissful goal of
the Absolute Truth, then why should he expect anyone to take him seriously? He
may get donations for speaking very nicely, but very few will sacrifice their
sense gratification to aspire for some impersonal goal which is only his
interpretation anyway.
So, this brings me back to the supposed inconsistency of the Vedic literatures
and the importance of hearing through paramparaa. Ultimately, when you hear
scripture through one of the four bona fide sampradaayas, you will get a very
consistent picture of the Truth, as well as some consistent rules and
guidelines which should be followed to get there.
When a consistent message of Vedic spirituality is delivered in this way,
there will no longer be any doubt as to what is right and what is wrong.
Hindus will not be able to engage in so many materialistic vices under the
strength of their assertion that it is "their interpretation." If Hindus could
develop faith in a consistent Vedic system of belief and practice, they would
cease to become a defeated culture that tries to cover their shame by
absorbing Western ideas. Instead, they would be able to teach others what the
real purpose of human life is. No one will respect Vedic culture if the Hindus
themselves do not respect it.
In this case, how to decide what paramparaa, or disciplic succession is giving
the proper understanding of the Vedanta? Ultimately, if there are several
genuine paramparaas, then their basic conclusions will be the same. Each will
present a consistent understanding of the Vedic literatures that is in line
with the Bhagavad-Gita. It's not hard to see who such people are if one reads
the Gita with an open mind.
The paramparaa system makes sense because there has to be some way of
filtering out the authentic scripture (those actually compiled by Vyaasa) from
those which are later corruptions. I don't mean to name names and stir up bad
feelings, but just to take an example, Ramakrishnana Balasubrmanian scoffed at
the very idea of hearing scripture through a paramparaa. But this attitude is
short sighted. If you don't accept guru-shishya paramparaa as the proper way
of hearing the Vedanta, then you have no way of deciding what versions of a
scripture to accept, and what to reject. That means that if you know a
particular version of a Purana has been corrupted by the later addition of
verses, you have no reason for rejecting that in favor of another version
which has been in circulation for thousands of years!
Let's say, for example, that I find a version of the Siva Purana that I feel
blasphemes Lord Siva. I could reject it simply because it offends me, but that
would be a personal judgement call based on my own tastes and biases, with
little objectivity. On the other hand, if I accepted that some versions of the
Siva Purana were authentic and others were not, then it follows that there
must be some mechanism for determining that -- namely, the disciplic
succession of spiritual masters whose responsibility it is to maintain and
comment on these texts. Without the authority of such a paramparaa, I have no
basis for saying what versions of the Purana are acceptable and which are not.
In fact, without such a paramparaa I could not say anything authoritative
about the Purana at all, because I would have to accept that every version of
the Siva Purana is just as good as every other!
The same 700 Sanskrit Verses of the Bhagavad-Gita are accepted by all major
schools of Vedanta, including the advaitist one. Therein it is clearly stated
who is the Supreme God and what the purpose of life is. The Gita is the Lord's
own explanation of the Vedanta, and since everyone accepts the same version of
it, it therefore follows that they must understand other Vedic texts with
respect to the Gita. The Gita clearly explains why the Vedas contain
facilities for worshiping other devas, who these devas are in relation to Lord
Krishna, and who we should worship if we want liberation. If a Hindu honestly
accepts the idea that there is a God, then he has to accept that the other
Vedic literatures must be in line with the Gita. Any inconsistencies can only
be due to 1) our own misunderstanding, or 2) an unauthentic version of the
scripture. The authenticity of the Gita can't be questioned since all major
Vedanta schools accept it. So one must accept the other scriptures in the same
spirit as the Gita. In fact, when you think about it, the desire to see
inconsistency in the Vedic literatures is held by those who have no faith in
them. This includes the Christian evangelists of old as well as certain
new-age Hindu groups. I see no difference between these groups because they
each are trying to break the faith of the people in the literal Vedanta in
order to forward their own respective agendas. A true theist would accept the
opinions of scripture as superior to the speculations given by mortal men.
So, to summarize, I don't believe that:
If you admit that you believe in Vaishnavism because you FEEL it's
>right, I won't and can't argue. But, as you very aptly observed, different
>versions say various things and you can't claim puraanic superiority by
quoting
>only those which support you.
Everyone accepts the Bhagavad-Gita, and the Gita very clearly states that
Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and that He is distinct from
the other jivas. There is no question of merging with Him as far as the Gita
is concerned. I have yet to see any clear-cut advaitist sentiments in BG. So
if you accept Bhagavad-Gita, then you have to become a devotee of Lord
Krishna, and accept only as genuine those paramparaas which are also dedicated
to Him. You can't claim that Bhagavad-Gita is a scripture and then accept some
other yogi who gives a different opinion than it. The Topmost commentary on
the Vedanta has already been given by Krishna in the Gita. So, for those of
you who are interested in the Absolute Truth and who accept the Gita, I
suggest you start with Bhagavad-Gita and judge the authenticity or lack
thereof of other beliefs and paramparaas according to it.
-- HKS
