Authority of the Puraanas

[Guest guest]

Recently some individuals have questioned the authority of a

particular section of the Padma Puraana. The "logic" used to instill

doubt about its authenticity is as follows:

 

1) Aachaaryas before Srila Prabhupada have allegedly not quoted the

section in question, therefore the section is interpolated. (the fact

that Srila Prabhupada did quote it, who is alleged by the same

critics to have all the lakshanas of a great bhaagavata, apparently

does not count in this analysis)

 

2) The section in question is not shruti anyway. Therefore, it is

interpolation until proven otherwise.

 

Now, one can already appreciate the silliness of the above arguments.

There are many, many verses in the Puraanas, whose total number of

verses number in the hundreds of thousands, which likely have never

been quoted by any aachaaryas. Should we therefore consider all of

them interpolation on that basis? Furthermore, it has already been

established that the verses in question can be found in nonsectarian

editions of the Puraana.

 

However, what I wish to address here is the underlying premise

that "Since this is a Puraana, if it causes me indigestion, it is

therefore interpolation by default, until you prove otherwise." This

attitude stems from a very wrong thinking about Puraanas vis-a-vis

Vedas.

 

Vedas are apaurusheya, meaning they have no human origin. They have

no beginning and no end; their existence is eternal. Vedas are

traditionally passed down without adulteration in the oral tradition;

thus they are called shruti. This is why shrutis are traditionally

given greatest significance.

 

Puraanas are traditionally understood to be compilations of Sri Veda

Vyaasa, and therefore are not regarded as apaurusheya. Also, Puraanas

are not passed down with the same level of strictness as shruti, so

Advaitins traditionally imagine all sorts of interpolations to have

occurred in them (always coincidentally the very same verses which

cannot be bent to their monistic misinterpretations) even though they

can present no evidence to prove this. However, for them, merely

saying something is interpolated is somehow sufficient for their

purpose.

 

Thus, Advaitins like to ignore Puraanas on the basis that Puraanas

are alleged to be of human composition, unlike Vedas, and are not

passed down the way shruti is passed down.

 

 

First of all, Puraanas are actually not human compositions. The

*shrutis themselves* say that the Puraanas have the same origin as

the Vedas.

 

R^ichaH saamaani chandaa.msi puraaNa.m yajuShaa saha |

uchchhiShTaaj jaj~nire sarve divi devaa divishritaaH || AV 11.7.24 ||

 

The R^ig, Saama, Yajur, and Atharva Vedas appeared from the Supreme

Lord along with the PuraaNas and all the demigods residing in the

heavenly planets (atharva veda 11.7.24).

 

sa yathaardraidhaagnerabhyaahitaatpR^ithagdhuumaa vinishcharanti

eva.m vaaare'syamahato bhuutasya niHshvasitametadyadR^igvedo

yajurvedaH saamavedao'tharvaaN^girasa itihaasaH puraaNa.m vidyaa

upaniShadaH shlokaaH suutraaNyanuvyaakhyaanaani vyaakhyaanaani

asyaivaitaani niHshvasitaani || BU2.4.10 ||

 

As from a fire kindled with wet fuel, clouds of smoke issue forth,

so, my dear, verily, from this Glorious Great God has been breathed

forth the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, Saama Veda, Atharvaangirasa,

Itihaasa, Puraanas, Science of knowledge, Mystic Doctrines of

Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations and commentaries.

>From Him, indeed, are all these breathed forth

(bR^ihadaaranyakopaniShad 2.4.10).

 

Now, Advaitins will not like the literal meaning of these statements,

but that is their problem. The shrutis *clearly* *state* that the

Puraanas have the *same* *apaurusheya* *origin* as the Vedas. Thus,

one cannot simply dismiss the Puraanas as paurusheya texts, and use

this as an excuse to ignore them.

 

Furthermore, the Puraanas are considered the fifth Veda by the

shrutis themselves. In the Chaandogya Upanishad, it is recorded that

Naarada once approached Sanat-Kumaara with a doubt, after which the

latter asked what he had studied up to that point. Naarada replied

that he studied the four Vedas and the Puraanas and Itihaasas as the

fifth Veda.

 

rigveda.m bhagavo'dhyemi yajurveda.m saamavedamaatharvaNa.m

chaturthamitihaasapuraaNa.m pa~nchama.m vedaanaa.m veda pitR^iya.m

raashi.m daiva nidhi.m va kovaakyamekaaayana.m devavidhyaa.m

brahmavidhyaa.m bhuutavidhyaa.m kShatravidyaa.m nakShatravidyaa.m

sarpadevajanavidhyaametadbhagavo'dhyemi || CU 7.1.2 ||

 

Revered master, I know the Rig Veda, the Yajurveda, the Saaamaveda,

and the Atharvan as the fourth, the Itihaasa, Puraanas as the fifth,

graammer, the rules for the worship of the manes, mathematics, the

science of portents, the chronology, logic, the science of ethics,

etymology, the ancillary knowledge of the Vedas, the physical

science, the science of war, the astronomy, the science of snake-

charming and the fine arts. This, venerable master, I know

(chaandogya upaniShad 7.1.2).

 

If the Puraanas were not really the fifth Veda, then the shruti would

be telling a falsehood - a conclusion not acceptable to any Vedaanta

scholar. Nor would it seem reasonable to suggest that great Muni like

Naarada was only giving the Puraanas a "consolation designation," as

there would be no reason from context to expect him to falsely

glorify a scripture as Veda, when in fact it is not. Therefore, what

can we do? We must accept the opinion of Naarada and the Chaandogya

Upanishad that the Puraanas are in fact the Fifth Veda.

 

The same point is made also in the Bhaagavatam:

 

R^igyajuHsaamaatharvaakhyaa vedaishchatvaara uddhR^itaaH |

itihaasapuraaNa.m cha pa~nchamo veda uchyate || bhaa 1.4.20 ||

 

R^ig-yajuH-saama-atharva-aakhyaaH - the names of the four Vedas;

vedaaH - the Vedas; chatvaaraH - four; uddhR^itaaH - made into

separate parts; itihaasa - historical records (.mahaabhaarata);

puraaNam cha - and the Puraanas; pa~nchamaH - the fifth; vedaH - the

original source of knowedge; uchyate - is said to be.

 

The four divisions of the original sources of knowledge [the Vedas]

were made separately. But the historical facts and authentic stories

mentioned in the Puraanas are called the fifth Veda (bhaagavata

puraaNa 1.4.20).

 

Thus, it is shown that Puraanas are also on the level of the

apaurusheya Veda. This is according to the Vedas themselves, and

those who do not accept this are disagreeing with Vedas.

 

Then comes the concern that because Puraanas are not shruti,

interpolation might have occurred in them.

 

In reality, each section of the Vedas was entrusted to a different

paramparaa for preservation.

 

tatrargvedadharaH pailaH saamago jaiminiH kaviH |

vaishampaayana evaiko niShNaato yajuShaam uta || bhaa 1.4.21 ||

 

After the Vedas were divided into four divisions, Paila Rishi became

the professor of the Ròg Veda, Jaimini the professor of the Saama

Veda, and Vaishampaayana alone became glorified by the Yajur Veda.

(bhaagavata puraaNa 1.4.21)

 

atharvaa.ngirasaam aasiit sumantur daaruNo muniH |

itihaasapuraaNaanaa.m pitaa me romaharShaNaH || bhaa 1.4.22 ||

 

The Sumantu Muni Angiraa, who was very devotedly engaged, was

entrusted with the Atharva Veda. And my father, Romaharshana, was

entrusted with the Puraanas and historical record. (bhaagavata

puraaNa 1.4.22)

 

Thus, even the Puraanas have their paramparaa just as the shrutis do.

 

Yet it is a fact that Puraanas are today known as smriti. Most of us

get the Puraanas not through the oral tradition but through published

manuscripts. So the argument that they are therefore smriti, and thus

subject to interpolation arises.

 

But then, how many critics of the Puraanas have themselves received

shruti mantras through the oral tradition? Practically speaking, most

of those who make accusations of "interpolation" and plead with us to

stick with shruti, are themselves not quoting shruti from memory, but

instead quoting from books published by the likes of Max Muller,

Whitney, H.H. Wilson, Basham, etc who themselves have no paramparaa.

Thus, shruti for them is being taken as smriti - how many of them

actually check their sources and ensure that no interpolation has

occurred? It's doubtful that any of them do.

 

But it may be that the shrutis were converted to print at a much

later date than the Puraanas, and thus the Puraanas are more prone to

interpolation. Very well - we can address this possibility. It was

Shrii VedaVyaasa, whom everyone accepts as an incarnation of

Naaraayana, who was responsible for dividing the Vedas and Puraanas

and passing them on. Being nondifferent from Naaraayana, Vedavyaasa

is a tri-kaala jnaai; he knows past, present, and future, and thus He

knew what fate would befall the Puraanas thousands of years later.

Surely no one would suggest that God had no idea what the future

would bring as far as the Puraanas are concerned.

 

Yet, it is a fact that Vyaasa compiled the Puraanas anyway and gave

them their own paramparaa. His reasons for doing so are stated in the

Bhaagavatam: He wanted to enlighten the less intelligent class of

men, who would not be qualified to study the shrutis:

 

bhautikaanaa.m cha bhaavaanaa.m shaktihraasa.m cha tatkR^itam |

ashraddadhaanaan niHsattvaan durmedhaan hrasitaayuShaH || bhaa 1.4.17

||

 

durbhagaa.msh cha janaan viikShya munir divyena cakShuShaa |

sarvavarNaashramaaNaaM yad dadhyau hitam amoghadR^ik || bhaa 1.4.18 ||

 

The great sage, who was fully equipped in knowledge, could see,

through his transcendental vision, the deterioration of everything

material, due to the influence of the age. He could also see that the

faithless people in general would be reduced in duration of life and

would be impatient due to lack of goodness. Thus he contemplated for

the welfare of men in all statuses and orders of life. (bhaagavata

puraaNa 1.4.17-18)

 

ta eva vedaa durmedhair dhaaryante puruShair yathaa |

eva.m chakaara bhagavaan vyaasaH kR^ipaNavatsalaH || bhaa 1.4.24 ||

 

Thus the great sage Vyaasadeva, who is very kind to the ignorant

masses, edited the Vedas so they might be assimilated by less

intellectual men.(bhaagavata puraaNa 1.4.24)

 

These verses explain why Vyaasa compiled the Vedas and Puraanas - to

help the less-intelligent people of Kali Yuga to understand them.

 

Would Vyaasa have compiled the Puraanas if He knew they would just

end up being riddled with interpolations? Can a scripture that is

riddled with interpolation enlighten anyone? We think not. Possibly

there may be some interpolation in some texts, but not enough to

reject their authority outright.

 

We think it more likely that because Vyaasa compiled the Puraanas for

the benefit of the less-intelligent people of Kali-Yuga, that He did

this knowing that interpolation might occur and where it would occur,

and that many sources in shruti tell us the Puraanas are apaurusheya

and fifth Veda, that the authority of the Puraanas is not to be

rejected *whimsically,* but only if there is definite evidence that

suggests interpolation.

 

An example of such evidence would be if the Puraana presents a

conclusion that contradicts what is found in shruti. Clearly, the

shrutis do not contradict themselves, and so if the Puraana cannot be

interpreted in a way to bring it in line with the shruti, then the

possibility that it is interpolated must be considered.

 

Another example of such evidence might be a passage that is found

only in one recension of the Puraana, but not in any other. There

might be other examples as well.

 

The point is, the authority of the Puraanas must not be rejected

*blindly,* for that is against the principles of their being

scripture. Their authority should be accepted as a given unless

reasonable doubt can be presented as to why it should not be so. To

simply reject them as interpolated until proven otherwise, is

blatantly disrespectful. The Puraanas themselves warn of such an

attitude:

 

vedaarthaad adhika.m manye puraaNaartha.m varaanane |

vedaaH pratiShThitaaH sarve puraaNe naatra sa.mshayaH ||

puraaNam anyathaa kR^itvaa tiryagyonim avaapnuyaat |

sudaanto 'pi sushaanto 'pi na gati.m kvachid aapnuyaat ||

 

(Lord Siva said) O lovely one, I consider the Puraanas more important

than the Vedas because the Puraanas firmly establish all the Vedic

meanings. There is no doubt of this. One who disrespects the Puraanas

will take birth as a subhuman; even if he can expertly control his

senses and mind, he can attain no good destination. (Naarada Puraana,

quoted in Tattva-sandarbha 16.4 by Sriila Jiiva Gosvaamii)

 

This warns against the attitude of those who study only shrutis and

disregard the conclusions of the Puraanas. It is rather the case that

those who cannot accept the Puraanas have usually misunderstood the

Vedas; the Puraanas help to explain the Vedas, and thus the correct

conclusions must harmoniously take both sources into account.