[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Bhagavata and Padma Puranas (was Re: REQUEST : What is VEDANTA...)
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Bhagavata and Padma Puranas (was Re: REQUEST : What is VEDANTA...)
-
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@braincells.com>
-
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 06:03:03 GMT
-
Apparently-To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Consolidated Braincells Inc.
-
References: <ghenDxxtIt.1ID@netcom.com>
Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU> wrote in article
<ghenDxxtIt.1ID@netcom.com>...
>
> Jaldhar H.Vyas wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > The problem with the Veda is that it is off-limits to women and
Shudras.
> > As it would be unjust to deny access to the shastras to the vast
majority
> > of Dharmik people
>
> I don't think you realized the vagueness of the above lines.
>
> Firstly, yes, women and shudras are not allowed to learn the Vedas.
You've
> called that a "problem" - why?
>
The purpose of the shastras is to know Dharma (the karma kanda) or Brahman
(the jnana kanda.) For people who wish to know things, not being able to
read about them is a problem no?
> You say that "it is unjust to deny access...the vast majority". My
question is -
> If it were unjust, *why* are the women and shudras denied access to the
Vedas?
>
Why aren't men "allowed" to ovulate? Why has nature come with a second
sex (To avoid a war I won't specify which sex should be considered the
second one :-) when one could clearly suffice?
There is no actual injustice. It would be an injustice _if_ the Puranas
didn't exist. But they do so the whole question is moot.
> If the essence of the Vedas and the Puranas were the same, why isn't
everyone
> allowed to study the Vedas too, since there really is nothing "extra" in
it?
>
> I'll make my argument much clearer:
>
> 1) If there is something important in the Vedas not to be found in the
Puranas:
> the puranas are surely a poor substitute for the Vedas, since it
misses its
> very purpose - that of capturing the essence of the Vedas.
>
> 2) If there is nothing important in the Vedas that isn't in the Puranas:
>
> (i) it makes *no sense* to bar a section of the society (viz.
shudras) from
> learning something *unimportant*.
>
> (ii) there would be very little to be gained by studying the Vedas
instead
> of the Puranas (which is not the case).
>
Your argument is based on the unsupported assumption that Occams razor
applies here. Why can't there be two sets of shastras just as there are
two sexes? Or more for that matter. We consider shishtachar
("tradition") to be a source of Dharma along side Shruti and Smrti.
> > Maharshi Veda Vyas took the essence of the Veda and
> > wrote the Mahabharata (of which the Bhagavad Gita is a part) and the
> > Purana which he taught to his student Suta Pauranik.
>
> If Vyasa wrote the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Padma purana, he must have
been
> a Tamilian :-).
>
[arguments for Tamil origin of Bhagavata Purana and Veda Vyas snipped.]
I've heard this evidence before and for all I know it may be true.
(Though as Tamil has an old literary tradition I'd wonder why he wrote in
Sanskrt instead of that language.) But what is the upshot of this? does
it make any difference to our practice of Dharma? In fact, we aren't
actually required to believe that Veda Vyas ever "really" existed at all.
And lest you think that's some modern notion I've picked up, it actually
is the orthodx Mimamsak View. So if it helps to think of Veda Vyas as
Tamil, go for it. Certainly many great scholars are known to have come
forth from that area.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar@braincells.com] o- beable .-_|\
Consolidated Braincells Inc. / \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ Perth Amboy-> *.--._/
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy finger me for PGP key v McQ!
