Tampering with sastra

[Guest guest]

Among those who accept sastra pramana, approaches to textual understanding

become much more complicated when there are claims of interpolation.

Madhvacarya considered common renditions of Mahabharat at his time to have

been interpolated. Similarly, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura deemed

sastra as we have it today to be interpolated and adjusted, especially in

the matter of upholding caste supremacy of brahmanas. For instance he wrote

(in Brahmana o Vaisnava):

 

"Although in the opinion of some scriptures there is no possibility of

becoming an initiated brahmana unless one is a seminal brahmana, this

restriction was imposed only because of narrow-minded social traditions."

 

And in the Harmonist, 19 September 1934, his prominent disciple Prof. Nishi

Kant Sanyal wrote:

 

"The most stubborn opponents of any proposal for the revival of the

varnasrama organization are sure to come from the ranks of the caste

brahmanas. For centuries the hereditary brahmanas have been enjoying the

monopoly of power over the religious affairs of the Hindus. Much ingenuity

has been exercised in changing inconvenient readings of the old texts,

interpolating corrupt opinion and manufacturing sastric literature in aid of

the supremacy of the caste brahmanas. The appeal to sastras is not so much

dreaded by these reactionaries, thanks to these precautions, as the appeal

to common sense.

 

The special supremacy of the caste brahmanas is however opposed to the

democratic spirit of the age. It is also being assailed by the labors of

scholars who are restoring the proper reading of the texts of the sastras,

on the deliberate perversions of which the superstitious and irrational

upholders of a spurious system have been accustomed up till now to place

their chief reliance."

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Bhakti Vikasa Swami wrote:

 

> Among those who accept sastra pramana, approaches to textual understanding

> become much more complicated when there are claims of interpolation.

 

Yes, and this is important not only in terms of the current and future editing

of Srila Prabhupada's books, a hot controversy in some quarters, but also even

regarding the books he chose to translate in the first place. Some time ago, we

also discussed this problem in regard to collections of medieval

bhajana-sangrahas, which are almost always interpolated to one degree or

another. At least in some cases, unless we have a clear statement from our

acaryas (especially Srila Prabhupada) upholding the validity of a given text,

textual criticism seems necessary at some point.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

achintya, mpt@u... wrote:

>

> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Bhakti Vikasa Swami wrote:

>

> > Among those who accept sastra pramana, approaches to textual

understanding

> > become much more complicated when there are claims of

interpolation.

>

At least in some cases, unless we have a clear statement from our

acaryas (especially Srila Prabhupada) upholding the validity of a

given text, textual criticism seems necessary at some point.

>

 

I really don't know what to do with people who just arbitrarily

denounce something as "interpolation." On one hand, I can accept that

such a doubt is reasonable if the statement in question is found in

only one recension of a Puraana and appears to contradict other, more

mainstream pramaanas. But in most cases, I find that people become

accustomed to the old "I don't like that evidence, it contradicts

what I believe, but since it's not shruti, it must be interpolated

and I need say nothing further to dignify it" argument.

 

If one must prove that a given shaastra is not interpolated everytime

he quotes it, then the usefulness of that shaastra comes into

question, since one normally quotes from something whose authority is

unquestioned. Similarly, if we only stick with shaastras that

are "mainstream," then we fall into the trap of assuming that only

widely studied texts are the bona fide ones, as if the authority of

some Vedic scripture depends on some one else's approval. And what

happens if some aachaaryas accept it and others don't? It becomes a

question of which aachaarya you choose to follow, which again makes

one wonder why bother even quoting the text in the first place - just

believe whatever the aachaarya says.

 

Perhaps the solution is not to assume interpolation has occurred

unless one can demonstrate reasonable doubt, and in all other cases

accept the authority of the itihaasas/puraanas given that they are

mainstream texts quoted in numerous literatures including themselves.

 

- K