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

ARTICLE : Puraanas (was Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On



Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@braincells.com> wrote in article
<ghenDyAur1.LKH@netcom.com>...
> "H. Krishna Susarla" <susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu> wrote in article
> <ghenDy7ErK.88w@netcom.com>...

> Wait a minute, Maharshi Veda Vyas has composed 18 Puranas (and 18
> Upapuranas) not just the sattvik. 
> How do you justify limiting authority to just six?  

The Puraanas themselves make the distinction. They are divided into 3
classifications (taamasic, raajasic, and saattvik). It's not the case that
the Puraanas in the first two are simply ignored. They do contain some
correct information, but the saattvik ones are considered more
authoritative, owing to statements throughout the Vedic literatures
praising the mode of goodness as the best quality for acquiring knowledge. 

Gaudiiya Vaishnavas regard the Bhaagavatam as the topmost authority, based
on various evidence given throughout the Puraanas and in the Bhaagavatam
itself. Other Vaishnava sampradaayas may subject the Puraanas (including
the Bhaagavatam) to the scrutiny of what can be confirmed in the shruti.
But in either the case, much of what is in the Puraana is accepted
conditionally.

> There are Puranas which extol Shiva Bhagawan or Bhagawati Amba as the
> supreme lord in precisely the same kind of language as Vaishnava Puranas
> extol Vishnu Bhagawan.  Ignoring their testimony is a perfact example of
> selective reading.

Not really. At least for Gaudiiyas, the "selective reading" and its
necessity are based on what the Puraanas themselves say:

pa~ncaa`nga`m ca puraa.na`m syaad aakhyaanam itarat sm.rtam
saatvike.su ca kalpe.su maahaatmyam adhika`m hare.h
raajase.su ca maahaatmyam adhika`m brahma.no vidu.h
tadvad agnes' ca maahaatmya`m taamase.su s'ivasya ca
sa`nkiir.ne.su sarasvatyaa.h pit.rr.naa`m ca nigadyate

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."

There was another quote from the same Puraana as this that was quoted in
A.S. Raghavan's book on Vishishtaadvaita. That one explained that the
different Puraanas were spoken in different kalpas. Apparently, there are
kalpas where Lord Shiva's worship predominates, kalpas where Vishnu's
worship predominates, etc. It was explained in the very last line that only
in the kalpas where Vishnu's worship predominates do people attain the
param gatih, or supreme destination. I don't have that book with me now,
but I think I posted it a long time back on the same newsgroup. I'll see if
I can't dig it up at some point.

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. The Puraanas themselves solve this problem by pointing
out the classification. As far as Gaudiiya Vaishnavas are concerned, other
Puraanas exist for those who might be inimical to Vishnu. 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. 

In reality, if one were to claim all Puraanas as equally authoritative, and
ignore statements which classify them in the Puraanas themselves, then that
would actually be selective reading.

> The Shaivas say liberation can only be attained by devotion to Shiva
> Bhagawan and Shaktas, Ganapatyas, Sauras etc make the same claim for
their
> various ishtadevatas.

They can make whatever claims they want. But, what is the reliability of
the scriptures which they quote to support such claims? How many aachaaryas
have written commentaries on the Shiva Puraana or Devi Bhaagavata, for
example? Not many I would wager. Certainly the saattvik Puraanas such as
Vishnu and Bhaagavata have received much more attention. Their internal
consistency, a qualification the Puraanas in the other two modes often
lack, merits such serious consideration, even from a nonVaishnava point of
view.

  The mistake all Ishvaravadis make is to read to
> much into the arthavada portions of the shastras. 

What do you mean by arthavada? 

 The shastras teach
> Dharma and the various stutis to different Gods are just there to praise
> dharmic acts.

You are quite incorrect. The Bhaagavatam does away with all mundane forms
of religious principles and concentrates instead on the essence -- Krishna
prema. In the very beginning of this illustrious work, Suuta Gosvaamii
states:

sa vai pu`msaa`m paro dharmo
 yato bhakti adhok.saje
ahaituky apratihataa
 yayaatmaa suprasiidati (SB 1.2.6)

"The supreme occupation [dharma] for all humanity is that by which men can
attain to loving devotional service unto the transcendent Lord. Such
devotional service must be unmotivated and uninterrupted to completely
satisfy the self."

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. 

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)

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. 

> Or if you have Veda adhikara like me to read the Veda.

Perhaps. But adhikaara alone may not guarantee that one will arrive at the
right conclusion by study of the shruti. Krishna spoke the Bhagavad-Giitaa
to clarify what the Vedas teach. So, I would be very skeptical of any
understanding that is arrived at by study of the Vedas which is
contradicted by what is stated by Krishna in the Giitaa.

regards,

-- Krishna Susarla

p.s. about the Shiva-sahasranaama: I don't know why Vishnu spoke it, and I
don't have access to the Shiva Puraana. One of the things I gave up after
graduating from Rice U. was a halfway decent library. Still, I already
pointed out the conditional nature of things spoken in many of the
Puraanas. Of course, the mere fact that Vishnu would speak such a thing
does not strike me as being contradictory to the Vaishnava understanding,
at least, not based on what little information you have provided.
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.