[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
ARTICLE : God and the Shastras (was Re: ARTICLE : Advice on...)
-
To: ghen@netcom.com
-
Subject: ARTICLE : God and the Shastras (was Re: ARTICLE : Advice on...)
-
From: Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU>
-
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 17:02:35 -0500
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> If Shiva Bhagawan were to appear before me right now and tell me to shave
> on Tuesdays, I'd tell Him "Sorry Bhagawan your shastras forbid it."
That would be an extremely foolish thing to do, IMHO! (This is not a personal
attack, just a way of showing my surprise at reading such a ridiculous story!)
In the first place, not to ask for mukti is to miss everything :-)
Secondly, if you KNOW that it is indeed the supreme Self of the universe,
then the shastras, which are at best knowledge only (merely) at the Vyavaharika
level, are insignificant compared to the Lord (I believe Vedanta Desika or
Adi Shankara sings the praises of Lord Narayana by comparing the Vedas to
mere dust on the Lord's feet).
You could refer to the Mahabharata for the story of Lord Shiva cursing the
four Vedas to become dogs. The story goes something like this: the Vedas sing,
"VedaahametaM purushhaM mahaantam.h " -- only the Vedas know the glory of the
Purushha. Lord Shiva gets angry hearing the Vedas so arrogant, and curses them
to become dogs. When the Vedas plead for mercy, Lord Shiva grants them that
they would become liberated when they accompany Parvati and Himself when He
fights Arjuna. The dogs accompanying Shiva during His battle with Arjuna at the
end of Arjuna's penance are the Vedas!
Also, even sharing food with a "low caste" person may sometimes be good. In a
story in the Vishnu purana (or the Srimad bhagavatam?), a king who is a great
devotee of the Lord gets a little food and is ready to have his meal when
several people (all sent by Krishna of course :-)) request him for food, and he
gladly offers them his food. Finally, he is left only with some water, and when
a Chandala asks him for it, the king gives it to him without any hesitation
whatsoever saying,"After all, feeding you is like feeding the Lord." The Lord
appears before the king and grants him liberation.
In the story of Udanka in the Mahabharata: Udanka, a seer, receives the boon
from Sri Krishna that he would get water whenver he felt thirsty.
So one day, in a desert, Udanka feels thirsty and looks around for water.
At the same time in Indraloka, Krishna asks Indra to offer Amrita (nectar) to
Udanka. Indra says yes, but requests that he (Indra) offer the nectar in
any manner he wished. Krishna says that in whatever manner the nectar is
offered, Udanka would accept it. Indra accepts the "challenge."
So Indra puts on the guise of a Chandala, appears before Udanka and offers
him Amrita in the form of water. Udanka refuses and in fact gets angry with
the Chandala. Indra then disappears and Krishna appears before Udanka and
informs him of his ill luck at not accepting Amrita and also for shaming
Krishna before Indra!
> In
> certain situations what God thinks or does doesn't enter into the picture
> because those thoughts and actions have been delegated to the true and
> unbroken parampara of Acharyas.
As far as I know, the advaita parampara, which has the largest following among
the Vedanta schools in India, traces its parampara to Lord Narayana. To say that
what Lord Narayana thinks is immaterial is simply absurd!
FYI, even in the Brahma sutras, Badarayana tells us of different opinions
among different sages regarding some points.
An example is Brahma Sutra (3.4.41-42):
[The matter under discussion is: what should be done when a brahmacharin breaks
the vow of continence]
"And even a remedy is not available for him, since his fall is known from the
smriti to be irremediable, and he has no connection with it." [41]
"Some however, consider this to be a minor sin and concede expiation as in a
case of eating forbidden food. So it is explained by Jaimini." [42]
So there are two opinions regarding expiation from this sin: one considers the
case hopeless, another offers a remedy.
> Ancestry, tradition, community and
> continuity are everything.
No, they certainly are not. Even in the Mahabharata, Bhima marries Hidimbaa,
a demoness, because his mother commands him to. Actually, Bhima tells Hidimbaa
that he would kill her. But then, Hidimbaa falls at Kunti's feet and begs Kunti
to consider the fact that she (Hidimbaa) has fallen prey to Kamadeva's arrow and
would put an end to her life if Bhima would not become her husband. So Kunti
allows Bhima to marry Hidimbaa and Ghatotkacha is born.
There is also the instance of Vidura who is the son of a shudra woman and
Veda Vyasa, and whose brothers Pandu and Dhritarashtra, are Kshatriyas.
There are several more instances in the Mahabharata and Bhagavatam, I'm sure.
Therefore, ancestry is not everything; only Truth is everything.
> They are certainly more important than the
> desires of a single person no matter how sincere they are.
If that were the case, Kunti should have said that to Hidimbaa and asked her to
get lost.
-Kartik
