Puranic Expression -- History and Allegory

[raga]

The Puranas are filled with various histories. Often they are understood as allegorical, and sometimes as historical facts. In the Puranas, we also find exaggerated statements meant to make a strong point, and sometimes we find astonishing statements which are actual facts.

 

I would be eager to hear a word or two from our Pandits, particularly the views propounded by the Puranas themselves, as well as the recognized teachers in various lineages.

 

[theist]

Great topic raga.I'll just pop in with a question or two from time to time and maybe an occasional observation,but I have much interest in hearing how others deal with this.

 

In the Bhagvatam Canto 1 16th chapter we hear the narration of how Parksit received the age of Kali.

 

Suta begins his telling of the personality of Dharma in the form of a bull meeting the personality of the earth in the form of a cow.Dharma in the form of a bull had been wandering the earth and was now only standing on one leg.The earth in the form of a cow was grieving like a mother who had lost her child.She was crying and her beauty was lost. See SB 1.16.18

 

This strikes me a beautiful literary device used to set up the valuable instructions on how society should be maintained,and not literal.I have been accused of speculating because I can't point to a verse that says its a literary device.I don't press the point, but would be interested as to how others read this.

 

theist

[Guest guest]

The word purAnA means ancient as per modern translators. If even during Veda Vyasa's time it was called ancient, then one can understand that it is very very old. Given the fact mahabharatha was the new literature at the time of Veda Vyasa, one can say puranas were ancient by comparison. But Srimad Bhgavatha Purana deals with contemporary events of mahabharatha times. Then how can the term purAnAs mean ancient ? As purAnAs deal with the topics like creation of time and the universe, they can perhaps be called timeless. That which is timeless is anAdi. And as there are no known authors of the purAnAs, they can be considered apoureshyA. But no indologist or even traditional schools may accept that.

 

It is also interesting that the word purAnA is close to the word pUrana or complete. So can one say that purAnAs complete the purpose of the vedAs. Without the purAnAs it is difficult to understand the vedAs. Another meaning of the word purAnAs is history. But obviously, the concept of history is a lot different. It is not the history of a state or dynasty. On the other hand it is the history of the universe with a metaphysical tilt. The itihasas come close to modern concept of history. Literally, the word itihasa means it happened thus. So everything in the itihasas are historical facts.

 

However, the fact that there are interpolations in these texts is now an "established fact". I have not personally studied the evidence. Many times modern mind rejects that which is not obvious. Or cannot deal with apparent contradictions like stool being impure and cow dung being a purifier. Hard to say if there are interpolations and the extent there of. They also depend on concepts like evolution of language which may not be universally true or apply to divine languages like Sanskrit.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-27-2002).]

[raga]

I'll post here something I recently put together, reflecting on the matter.

 

Any thoughts are welcome. I do not claim the essay to be a conclusion, but rather thoughts in development.

[raga]

There are two things I would like to elaborate on, based on the quote above:

 

1. The position of pratyaksa and anumana in Gaudiya epistemology;

 

2. The non-ephemeral dimension of Puranic histories.

 

To avoid posts of excessive length, I will divide my reflections over two concice posts.

[raga]

<center>The Position of Pratyaksa and Anumana in Gaudiya Epistemology</center>

Let us open the discussion with the following stanza from Jiva's Sarva-samvadini:<blockquote>tathApi brahma-pramAda-vipralipsA-karaNApAtava-doSa-rahita-vacanAtmakaH zabda eva mUlaM pramANam. anyeSAM prAyaH puruSa-bhramAdi-doSa-mayatayAnyathA-pratIti-darzanena pramANaM vA tad AbhAso veti puruSair nirNetum azakyatvAt tasya tad-abhAvAt.

 

"Although there are ten means of acquiring knowledge, shabda is the primary method, because the other methods are unreliable on account of four human defects (bhramAdi doSa). With the other methods, it is difficult for a person to ascertain whether the knowledge gained is valid."</blockquote>Thus the final, conclusive source of evidence is ascertained. However, the other nine methods of acquiring knowledge are also granted with the status of "pramana", or evidence, and consequently cannot be neglected as non-existent. In fact, we find that in our everyday life we consistently rely on knowledge which would be designated under the headings of "pratyakSa" and "anumAna", in other words, empiricial observations and reasoning.

 

The Bhagavata boldly declares:

<blockquote><center>yAn AsthAya naro rAjan na pramAdyeta karhicit

dhAvan nimIlya vA netre na skhalen na pated iha</center>

“O King, accepting this [path of devotional service], one will never be bewildered. Even if running with his eyes closed, he will not trip or fall.”</blockquote>Nevertheless, it is a common practice to not run headlong with one's eyes closed. Even great saintly men walk with their eyes open and observe the road ahead. Upon seeing dark clouds on the sky, they reason: "Today it will rain." In this way, for common-place considerations, the ascending path of acquiring knowledge is valid and is relied upon, despite its human flaws, even by saintly men.

 

A saint will read in the scripture, "A religious man should certainly bathe in the Ganga on Ekadashi to obtain happiness in this world an the next." On the banks of Ganga, he will observe heaps of crocodiles. Then he reasons, "I have seen a man eaten alive by a crocodile, so better I will not bath today." It is obvious that the ascending process of acquiring knowledge has merit, and is not to be denied as entirely invalid. In fact, we find that Sri Bhagavan Himself recognizes the merit of each of the three prominent pramanas:<blockquote><center>pratyakSenAnumAnena nigamenAtma-saMvidA

Ady-anta-vad asaj jJAtvA niHsaGgo vicared iha</center>

"By direct perception, reasoning, scriptural statements and personal realization, one should understand how this world has a beginning and an end, and is temporary by nature. Knowing this, one should live in this world without attachment."</blockquote>As followers of shastra, when we are faced with a conflict between shastra and the observed and logical reality, it is our duty to properly understand and express the correctness of shastra -- to give the shastra its rightful place of honour among mankind -- instead of plainly insisting on its correctness despite evident contradicting evidence. To do so would make both the speaker and the shastra appear foolish in the eyes of the mankind at large.

 

In the next posting, I will try to shed a reconciling light over the non-ephemeral reality of the Puranas and its relation to the observations of modern science and history.

[raga]

A further excerpt from the same discussion.

<hr>

 

I am reminded of Kedarnath Bhaktivinoda, who took up the laborious task of preaching to the Bengali intellectuals of his time, who were keen of various Western views, including the back-then Indologists' views. I would like to present a relevant excerpt from his preface to Sri Krishna-samhita.<blockquote>With folded hands I request the old-fashioned readers to understand that if some conclusion is found herein that is contrary to their preconceptions, it was written with particular persons in mind. Whatever is written about religious codes, however, should be accepted by all.

 

The conclusions regarding subsidiary topics will yield the result of purifying some particular person's knowledge. There is no profit or loss for one who believes or disbelieves in the different subject matters described in the introduction regarding historical incidents and time according to sastric reason and argument.</blockquote>In other words, Bhaktivinoda agrees on the point that there is no harm in initially accepting a particular view of the scriptural histories, should it be helpful for the path of devotion. As stated therein, "The conclusions regarding subsidiary topics will yield the result of purifying some particular person's knowledge."

 

Eventually the view of an individual will change from a scientific one into a devotional one, and he can embrace a world of devotion, leaving behind the dry scientific outlook of the world.

 

We may find verses such as zruti-smRti-purANAdI paJcarAtra-vidhiM vinA and yad zAstra-vidhiM utsRjyA vartante kAma-kArataH of concern while reflecting on the proposal of accepting preliminary conclusions to facilitate acceptance of the path of devotion. We find the conclusion in the words of Bhaktivinoda: "Whatever is written about religious codes (sastra-vidhi), however, should be accepted by all."

 

To progress with the discussion, I would suggest if there are further concerns over the acceptance of any statements or histories, then they should be specified and examined on an individual basis to discover the context and the essential import of the history / injunction. Where is this carrot story coming from anyway, does anyone have a proper reference to help us see the context?

 

In the matter of building our faith, it is not necessary for us to import the Puranas into a world of analytical science, since that is not the world where they are intended to be reflected upon. Their message is to be incorporated into a world of devotion within us.

 

There are two views of the world, rather different from each other:

 

1. Empirical, scientific view -- not depending on devotion

2. Devotional view -- not depending on empirical views

 

In other words, let religion be religion, and let science be science. Let the devotional views be accepted within the world of our heart, and let the scientific views be accepted in the world out there. In the ultimate, we are not concerned with a world of science. It will subside to the shadows upon our embracing a life of devotion. This does not mean it is not valid for the world out there. Just that it is not relevant for a life of devotion.

 

Had Sukadeva Gosvami been overly concerned with explaining a strictly empirical view of the world, he would have set up a telescope and studied the matter. He did not.

 

 

[raga]

<hr>

That's all, folks. Now, comments please.

<hr>

[raga]

Looks quiet here...

 

I recall reading that Madhva viewed much of the Mahabharata at his time to be interpolated. Does anyone have reference for this?

 

I would also be interested in seeing other acaryas' comments on any scriptures being interpolated, or containing allegorical / untrue histories.

 

[theist]

Hey raga, I'm very interested in this subject but can't keep with with the academic tone.

 

How about just taking a slow walk through the Bhagavatam, story by story?

 

Myself (and others I suspect)would gain something very practical from that.

 

Maybe though the idea is not practical itself, I don't know.

[shvu]

 

I recall reading that Madhva viewed much of the Mahabharata at his time to be interpolated. Does anyone have reference for this?

I believe he says so in his Mahabhaarata Taatparya NirNaya. Although I am not sure, I think www.dvaita.org has a sanskrit text of the MBTN on their website.

 

I would also be interested in seeing other acaryas' comments on any scriptures being interpolated, or containing allegorical / untrue histories.

Dayaananda Saraswati's Guru told him the Puraanas are junk. I don't recall the details though.

 

Cheers

 

[Rati]

Mythology can be analyzed in various ways. I really do not have the time right now, but if anyone wants to look at the Puranas from the standpoint of the work of Joseph Campbell and others, that could be very interesting. Several years ago I attended a one day seminar on the Magician figure given by Robert Moore (a leader of the men's movement along with Robert Blye) in which he discussed how mythical archetypes are literally hardwired into our biology. Was an interesting lecture, although the group participation event at the end was kind of flaky (no smoking of peace pipes or native American sweat lodges - nothing that exotic - just kind of lame).

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-31-2002).]

[dasanudasa]

Originally posted by raga:

 

The fact that there is much to this world beyond the view of the earthly eyes is undeniable. Considering this, and desiring to preserve the reality of the divine histories of Bhagavata, we are bound to conclude that the reality of many of these histories exists in a realm beyond our vision. It is not a realm within the grasp of our sight, and it is not a realm within our means of verification. Whether we choose to call it the mythic dimension, the celestial dimension or the dimension of gods does not make much difference in the ultimate. There is certainly reality to it, since it is related with the pastimes of the Lord.

 

I remember reaching the same conclusion about different dimensions also “desiring to preserve the reality of the divine histories of Bhagavata”, but now I think that there is no real necessity of believing in something that is not “within our means of verification”. That only means we are not realizing that plane. So I take the scriptures as inspiration in the way of realization, if I ever reach my destination I will see directly how is it like.

 

your servant

 

dasanudasa

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

...but now I think that there is no real necessity of believing in something that is not “within our means of verification”.

In the initial stages of sadhana one must believe on something beyond his percption. God, the spiritual plane, etc., are not verifiable immediately and require one to rely on certain types of faith (which may be based on other perceivable experiences).

 

[dasanudasa]

Originally posted by jndas:

In the initial stages of sadhana one must believe on something beyond his perception. God, the spiritual plane, etc.

Do I believe in God? What conception of god will that be?

I am attracted to Radha-Krishna conception,

but if I am accept the authority of an orthodox religion

I may be not attracted anymore.

 

dasanudasa

 

 

 

[Bhaktavasya]

 

So glad this thread is revived. A search of the Puranas on Google lists 4,990 sites under 'origin of the puranas' and 18,900 sites under 'the puranas'. I really appreciate Raga's discourse thus far, hope there's more.

 

Here's a site I stumbled upon that is interesting;

http://www.culturopedia.com/Religions/scriptures.html

[shvu]

 

Here's a site I stumbled upon that is interesting;

http://www.culturopedia.com/Religions/scriptures.html

A good description, except that the Bhagavad Gita is listed as Shruti. The Gita is part of Smriti, as it never had a history of recitation nor is it a part of any Veda.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[Somesh Kumar]

I think initially the part of Puranas which appeals to the mind and which to a certain extent also appeals to the intellect should be contemplated on...

 

Though there might be some exaggeration of facts, but the truth is they are FACTS, as Raga pointed about candraloka, which cannot be seen in it's full splendour by the human eye (mundane senses!) - It's REALLY GOOD example!

[Bhaktavasya]

Isn't Bhagavad Gita sometimes referred to as the 5th Veda? The site says that the Upanishads (the 4th Veda)is Vedanta or the end of the Vedas and that Bhagavad Gita is the essense of the Upanishads. Also shruti is considered to be of divine origin whereas smriti is of human origin, written to explain shruti.

 

Another question, it is said (there)that Vyasadeva wrote the 18 puranas and sub-puranas. Was he (according to your information)the original author or the compiler?

[shvu]

 

Isn't Bhagavad Gita sometimes referred to as the 5th Veda? The site says that the Upanishads (the 4th Veda)is Vedanta or the end of the Vedas and that Bhagavad Gita is the essense of the Upanishads.

 

There are 4 Vedas and the Upanishads form the end of every Veda. Itihaasa, Puraana, Ayurveda, etc are sometimes referred to as the fifth Veda, to denote their importance.

 

Another question, it is said (there)that Vyasadeva wrote the 18 puranas and sub-puranas. Was he (according to your information)the original author or the compiler?

The Puraanaas are mentioned in the Chaandogya, etc, and the Puraanaas themselves talk about begin revealed by Brahma at the start of creation, etc, thus showing they were not entirely the creation of Vyaasaa. Traditionally, Vyaasaa is recognized as the compiler of the Puraanaas.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 07-12-2002).]