The sources of authority in Advaita Vedanta

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

[Was Re: Statements in our shastras]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Sanjay Verma wrote:

> I was merely pointing out that some scriptures are
> considered to have more weight than others.

Considered by whom?  If you take a look at what ancient and contemporary
authors actually cite, you will get a different idea than if all you know
is some modern reformer types.

> Clearly, the shruti texts
> have the greatest weight among the scriptures.

If you were to ask any random man in the street, they would probably say
the Ramacharitmanas or the Bhagavata had greater weight.  (In fact there
is a story that when Tulsidasji was encountering controversy over the
propriety of translating the Ramayana into Hindi, the Ramacharitmanas was
literally weighed against the Vedas and found superior.)

the point is what consists "canon" is highly debatable and we can't have
a rational conversation about it unless we first decide what we're talking
about.

Since this list is about Shankaracharya and the Smarta sampradaya, let me
give you give you our views on the matter.

Dharma is based on Shruti -- the Vedas which are apaurusheya and revealed
to the Rshis by methods we know not.  Smrti -- those compositions of
various Gods and Rshis which explain the Vedas.  These also include the
Puranas, Tantras etc. which provide the basis of most of contemporary
Hinduism.  And Shishtachara -- the conduct of Acharyas, scholars and
elders.

It is the scant attention that seems to be paid to the third of these
which troubles me.

For instance you write:

> As for eating meat, nowhere is it forbidden for all to eat meat -- only
> for Brahmins. In fact, for a Kshatriya warrier, it is encouraged to eat
> meat.

This totally factually wrong.  There are many Brahmana castes in Northern
India who do eat fish or other forms of meat.  for that matter there are
castes Kshatriya and others who are staunch vegetarians.  People don't
consult a book to decide what their dietary habits are going to be, it is
something they just know as part of growing up in a particular tradition.

That's the pernicious thing about this reliance on books.  It will cause,
God forbid, people to give up their real, historical traditions in favor
of some bogus fantasy version of the past.  To understand why this is
happening you have to look at recent history.  The Indian elite is
composed (though thankfully less so with each generation) of assimilated,
westernized people who are more familiar with the Bible than any shastra.
So when these people rediscover their roots they look around and they see
the Vedas or just the Upanishads, or the Gita etc. and think "Ah this is
the Hindu Bible."  From that viewpoint how dare those evil castists
deprive anyone of access to the Hindu Bible?  But the fact of the matter
is there is no Hindu Bible.

Here is a quote regarding the marriage ceremony:

"Once a time considered auspicious in the jyotisha shastra has been fixed,
the grooms parents should call their Kulaguru or a learned Purohit
(priest) to perform the Vivahasanskara.  The wise priest who is not
already familiar with the practices of his yajamana (client) should hasten
to seek the advice of the elders of the family to learn their kulachara
(family traditions.)  For a marriage that is made without respect for the
wishes of the Pitrs (ancestors) becomes barren and Hell is the abode of
that foolish priest who disregards the age-old practices of the family."

This is from Naimittikakarmaprakasha of Shri Nathuram Sharma who was
the dean of the astikas in Gujarat in the early 20th century.  And such
sentiments are hardly new.  Recently off the list I was asked a question
about the Mundan sanskara which is widely practiced amongst all strata of
society.  It has its basis in the Vedas but this is what the
Paraskaragrhyasutra  which is a Vedanga which explains sanskaras and other
rituals for the Shuklayajurveda has to say on the subject.

sAMvatsarikasya chuDAkaraNaM | trtIye vApratihate | yathAmangalaM sarveShAm |

Chudakarana (another name for Mundan) should be done at 1 year.  Or 3
years. Or whenever it is auspicious.

"whenever it is auspicious" is interpreted as "acording to the family
custom"  So as far as Dharma is concerned, if the custom in a particular
family or caste is to do Mundan at 5 years, then it doesn't matter what
the text of the Vedas says, 5 years is the correct date.

> Since you brought it up,
> I have also read (can't remember the citation at present) that the
> greatest authority for wisdom is one's own experience. One should never
> accept something which does not correspond to one's exerience. The
> emphasis in Hiduism, especially Vedanta, has been "experience" (i.e, to
> practice cultivating that perception of the oneness of the universe).

You yourself gave a rejoinder to this.

> I suspect that one can find just about anything in scripture to justify
> one's own attitude to these issues.

This is precisely why we rely on logic, grammar, history etc. and not
experience or attitudes.

> Once again, the point is not what is "infallible", but which carries
> more weight. If something is found objectionable in a shastra, one
> should be able to use one's own intellect, with reference to shruti
> texts, to completely disregard any objectionable statements. I do not
> have any suggestions about what one should do if one finds something
> objetionable in a shruti text... The Upanishads are considered shruti,
> right?

Yes.

> Many statements in one ostensibly contradict statements in
> another. Paradox is inherent in the shruti texts, precisely because the
> subject is too complex for our most uncultivated minds (as most human
> beings are) to comprehend.
>

Incidently, our acharyas reject this view.  The Vedas consist of language
which can be understood.  Panini gives the rules for the Vedic language as
well as regular Sanskrit.

> Yes, this was brought to my attention last time also (i.e., that the
> Gita is actually a smriti text). While that may be technically correct,
> I don’t think such classification is appropriate in the Hindu tradition.

What is this Hindu tradition?  It is the Hindu tradition that I (and many
others) know that calls the Gita a smrti.  You are talking about some
mysterious other thing that is unknown to me.  So why don't you define
that before proceeding further?

> First, the Gita is only part of the Mahabharata from a literary
> standpoint, not a spiritual standpoint.

Again I disagree.  There are plenty of adhyatmic sections such as
Mokshadharma, Sanatasujatiyam, Anugita etc.

 What I mean by this is that
> there are many (hundreds?) recensions of the epics (both the Mahabharata
> and Ramayana). However, there is only 1 Gita, without any recensions.
> Through the centuries all 700 verses come down to us without even one
> syllable being changed. How could this happen if this “portion” of the
> Mahabharata did not carry more authority and value than other smriti
> texts? Now before anyone points out to me that some place 701 verses in
> the Gita, I am aware of this. But even this additional verse is
> consistent in that if it appears anywhere, it appears in the same form.
> No such consistency can be found with the epics or nonshruti texts.

Not true.  You can say the same about the Bhagavata or the Chandi Path or
many other works.

>
> As for the Brahmasutra, I do not have any knowledge of what weight it
> carries in the tradition.

So you should find out such basic facts first before proceeding further.
What you have just said is equivalent to "I don't know what weight washing
hands carries in the medical tradition."

> I was under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that the sutras carry more
> weight than the shastras.
>

I'm not quite sure wha you're trying to get at here but the Brahmasutras
do in fact quotes Smrti (Gita and others) in several places including the
story of Satyakama Jabala who I will write about later.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/

>From  Tue Mar 11 02:14:34 2003
Message-Id: <TUE.11.MAR.2003.021434.0800.>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:14:34 -0800
Reply-To: sanjay1297 at yahoo.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: Sanjay Verma <sanjay1297 at YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: The sources of authority in Advaita Vedanta
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0303081801240.30948 at samadhi.braincells.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-971748423-1047377674=:57563"

--0-971748423-1047377674=:57563
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


Namastubhyam. Pranam to all,

 "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM>> wrote:

[Was Re: Statements in our shastras]
>
>On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Sanjay Verma wrote:
>
>>> I was merely pointing out that some scriptures are
>>> considered to have more weight than others.
>
>Considered by whom? If you take a look at what ancient and contemporary
>authors actually cite, you will get a different idea than if all you know
>is some modern reformer types.

 Your continued insistence on reference to “reformer types” demonstrates that you have not understood my statements. Which “reformer type” have I quoted that you find so disagreeable? Are you discrediting Sri Krishna, Sri Chaithanya, Adi Shankaracharya and the Upanishads? Are their interpretations and comments not valid? Have I not quoted them more than anyone else? Please state directly which “reformer type” I have quoted whom you deem an invalid source. This whole discussion began with access to the Vedas for Shudras (i.e., my involvement in the discussion). For thousands of years sages have argued against limiting Vedic knowledge only to the dvijas. Are they all vagaries of their time to be discredited? In your own example below, Tulsidas translated the Ramayana from Sanskrit to a vernacular language so that all may have access to it, despite the strong disproval expressed by his fellow Brahmins. This is the point that I am repeatedly making: that despite shastraic statements for or against certain cultural practices, sages, saints, rishis, etc. have acted contrary to the shastras, and as such we should not take the shastraic injunctions so literally in our time. Even in the Mahabharata, the Pandavas violated the established rules of battle so that they may be victorious. Shastraic statements are guides for our social conduct: nothing more, and nothing less.

>>> Clearly, the shruti texts
>>> have the greatest weight among the scriptures.

>If you were to ask any random man in the street, they would probably say
>the Ramacharitmanas or the Bhagavata had greater weight. (In fact there
>is a story that when Tulsidasji was encountering controversy over the
>propriety of translating the Ramayana into Hindi, the Ramacharitmanas was
>literally weighed against the Vedas and found superior.)
>
>the point is what consists "canon" is highly debatable and we can't have
>a rational conversation about it unless we first decide what we're talking
>about.

I already made this point. Interestingly, that part of my writing has been edited out. I did mention that as common people practice Hinduism, the epics, shastras, and Puranas serve to influence their behavior and social norms more. But are you suggesting that just because the common people are more familiar with and moved by the epics and Puranas, that those are the ultimate sources of authority in a spiritual debate? If there is difference of agreement, do not the religious adepts then refer to “higher” sources of authority for social norms and the proper path(s) to moksha as described in the Upanishads or Vedas? We are engaged in a debate. So, when I say that certain texts have more spiritual authority, I am not referring to any random man on the street.


>Since this list is about Shankaracharya and the Smarta sampradaya, let me
>give you give you our views on the matter.

>Dharma is based on Shruti -- the Vedas which are apaurusheya and revealed
>to the Rshis by methods we know not. Smrti -- those compositions of
>various Gods and Rshis which explain the Vedas. These also include the
>Puranas, Tantras etc. which provide the basis of most of contemporary
>Hinduism. And Shishtachara -- the conduct of Acharyas, scholars and
>elders.



Okay, fine. I place the burden back on you. Which “scholars, acharyas, and elders” are valid sources of authority and which are not? And if two groups of “scholars, acharyas, or elders” disagree, does not one then go directly to the Shruti texts? Or does one wait until the two groups enter a public debate to see whose arguments are more influential. On the issue of caste, and shastraic injunctions, I have quoted Sri Krishna, Adi Shankaracharya, Sri Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu, and Sri Sathya Sai Baba. Whom among this list would you discredit?


>It is the scant attention that seems to be paid to the third of these
>which troubles me.
>
>For instance you write:
>
>>> As for eating meat, nowhere is it forbidden for all to eat meat -- only
>>> for Brahmins. In fact, for a Kshatriya warrier, it is encouraged to eat
>>> meat.
>
>This totally factually wrong. There are many Brahmana castes in Northern
>India who do eat fish or other forms of meat. for that matter there are
>castes Kshatriya and others who are staunch vegetarians. People don't
>consult a book to decide what their dietary habits are going to be, it is
>something they just know as part of growing up in a particular tradition.



You seem to have trouble comprehending the written word. I said that “nowhere is it forbidden” and that “it is encouraged” to eat or not eat meat. I made no reference to the common regional practices of Brahmins and Kshatriyas throughout India. Yet you say, “this is totally factually wrong.” Shall I waste the time to find the citations where different foods and activities are recommended for each caste? If you use this line of reasoning, then one can put forth examples of “Brahmins” who don’t live a life of teaching and studying. On this very list it was stated as “FACT” that a Brahmin who does not live a life of studying and teaching is just as low as a Shudra. So, while many Brahmins and Kshatriyas may eat or may not eat meat, I made no reference to such practices. The entire discussion was about what was sanctioned or prohibited in the scripture. Every guru I’ve ever talked to has said that for those on the spiritual path (e.g., meditation and yoga), eating meat is discouraged. But if it should so please you, give me a list of valid sources of authority, and when I have the time, I shall demonstrate to you that the food for Brahmins is different than the food for Kshatriyas.


>That's the pernicious thing about this reliance on books. It will cause,
>God forbid, people to give up their real, historical traditions in favor
>of some bogus fantasy version of the past. To understand why this is
>happening you have to look at recent history. The Indian elite is
>composed (though thankfully less so with each generation) of assimilated,
>westernized people who are more familiar with the Bible than any shastra.
>So when these people rediscover their roots they look around and they see
>the Vedas or just the Upanishads, or the Gita etc. and think "Ah this is
>the Hindu Bible." From that viewpoint how dare those evil castists
>deprive anyone of access to the Hindu Bible? But the fact of the matter
>is there is no Hindu Bible.



I have no comment on this. As I mentioned in my previous email, “reform” and syncretism are an ongoing process in Hinduism for thousands of years. There is no Hindu Bible, but there are texts that carry more authority. By whom? Apparently, that is the source of our disagreement.


>Here is a quote regarding the marriage ceremony:
>
>"Once a time considered auspicious in the jyotisha shastra has been fixed,
>the grooms parents should call their Kulaguru or a learned Purohit
>(priest) to perform the Vivahasanskara. The wise priest who is not
>already familiar with the practices of his yajamana (client) should hasten
>to seek the advice of the elders of the family to learn their kulachara
>(family traditions.) For a marriage that is made without respect for the
>wishes of the Pitrs (ancestors) becomes barren and Hell is the abode of
>that foolish priest who disregards the age-old practices of the family."
>
>This is from Naimittikakarmaprakasha of Shri Nathuram Sharma who was
>the dean of the astikas in Gujarat in the early 20th century. And such
>sentiments are hardly new. Recently off the list I was asked a question
>about the Mundan sanskara which is widely practiced amongst all strata of
>society. It has its basis in the Vedas but this is what the
>Paraskaragrhyasutra which is a Vedanga which explains sanskaras and other
>rituals for the Shuklayajurveda has to say on the subject.
>
>sAMvatsarikasya chuDAkaraNaM | trtIye vApratihate | yathAmangalaM sarveShAm |
>
>Chudakarana (another name for Mundan) should be done at 1 year. Or 3
>years. Or whenever it is auspicious.
>
>"whenever it is auspicious" is interpreted as "acording to the family
>custom" So as far as Dharma is concerned, if the custom in a particular
>family or caste is to do Mundan at 5 years, then it doesn't matter what
>the text of the Vedas says, 5 years is the correct date.



If you are placing such importance on family tradition now, then you are providing the very arguments with which I began. It doesn’t matter what the shastras say regarding caste distinction. If a particular family or community practices no such distinction, then that should suffice.


>>> Since you brought it up,
>>> I have also read (can't remember the citation at present) that the
>>> greatest authority for wisdom is one's own experience. One should never
>>> accept something which does not correspond to one's exerience. The
>>> emphasis in Hiduism, especially Vedanta, has been "experience" (i.e, to
>>> practice cultivating that perception of the oneness of the universe).
>
>You yourself gave a rejoinder to this.
>
>>> I suspect that one can find just about anything in scripture to justify
>>> one's own attitude to these issues.
>
>This is precisely why we rely on logic, grammar, history etc. and not
>experience or attitudes.



My point exactly, However, you seem to be very biased in accepted sources of authority that do not agree with your tradition as it has been given to you. Logic and history  have shown over and over that caste distinction in reference to access to Vedic knowledge do not have a place in our society now – not by “reformer types” but by sages. Such segregation has been challenged for thousands of years. Do you not remember the scene in the Mahabharata in which Sri Krishna is insulted at Yudhishtra’s ceremony for being but a cowherd at a royal assemblage? If you do not accept Sri Krishna’s arguments against such social segregation, then I’m not sure which “elders, scholars, and acharyas” you do accept. I also sent on this website the story of “Chaithanya and the Outcaste” as told by Sri Sathya Sai Baba. Do you discredit his authority to interpret our Hindu tradition also? If so, then it seems you only accept those who agree with you already, and the whole debate is futile. Perhaps it would be better for future postings on this site if you would in advance provide members with a list of valid sources of authority when engaging in a debate. But then, what debate would there be in preaching to the choir?


>>> Once again, the point is not what is "infallible", but which carries
>>> more weight. If something is found objectionable in a shastra, one
>>> should be able to use one's own intellect, with reference to shruti
>>> texts, to completely disregard any objectionable statements. I do not
>>> have any suggestions about what one should do if one finds something
>>> objetionable in a shruti text... The Upanishads are considered shruti,
>>> right?
>
>Yes.
>
>>> Many statements in one ostensibly contradict statements in
>>> another. Paradox is inherent in the shruti texts, precisely because the
>>> subject is too complex for our most uncultivated minds (as most human
>>> beings are) to comprehend.
>>>
>
>Incidently, our acharyas reject this view. The Vedas consist of language
>which can be understood. Panini gives the rules for the Vedic language as
>well as regular Sanskrit.



Well, some acharyas reject this view, and others do not. Maharishi Mahesh, student of the Shankaracharya of one of the Northern Maths, states that even the Gita is beyond the comprehension of most human beings due to their nescience. Or, shall I discredit his opinion because he is not on your list of “valid authorities”? Again, if you read my statement carefully, I said “too complex for most”. I did not say that it cannot be understood, but that it can be understood by only a few. However, if you do not like my view, I refer you to

“Just one man among thousands strives to win it; among those who know and strive, only one comes to know Me in truth.” [BG 7:3]

I used the word “paradox” in the above statement to which you objected. If you look at the word paradox, it literally means “a seemingly self-contradictory statement that still makes sense”. Just on this discussion group today there was discussion of Shiva, Vishnu, Narayana, and Agni. Is it not a paradox that in one place one deity is deemed supreme and in another place another deity is deemed supreme. I myself pointed out that such paradoxes are only apparent when one looks at them piecemeal and not the totality. So, while you seem to be disagreeing with me, we are in agreement – that there is a comprehensible whole. I merely added that for most “uncultured minds” the texts are too complex to be understood.


>>> Yes, this was brought to my attention last time also (i.e., that the
>>> Gita is actually a smriti text). While that may be technically correct,
>>> I don’t think such classification is appropriate in the Hindu tradition.
>
>What is this Hindu tradition? It is the Hindu tradition that I (and many
>others) know that calls the Gita a smrti. You are talking about some
>mysterious other thing that is unknown to me. So why don't you define
>that before proceeding further?



I am not talking about any mysterious thing. I am observing that in practice, through the centuries, more sages demonstrate their spiritual authority by commenting on the Gita than any other single text. Is this not so? This is a common tool in academics to ascertain what a cultural tradition deems important. If many religious scholars throughout the tradition have commented on it, or derived their teaching from it, then it holds a de facto importance in that culture. Technically, it is smriti; I agreed with you on that. What I added, is that it has more weight, based on what I just explained in this paragraph. Furthermore, in the Gita itself, as agreed by Shankaracharya with reference to Chapter 15, it states:

[I quote a translation of Adi Shankaracharya’s commentary]

“Though the entire Gita is held to be a shastra, this chapter by itself is here styled shastra by way of eulogy. This is clear from the context, because the import of the entire Gita has been briefly set forth here. Not only the import of the Gita, but also the entire import of the Veda has been given here in summary. Who knows it, is the knower of the Vedas.”

Are not Sri Krishna and Adi Shankaracharya elevating the Gita to a high level? That is all that I’ve been trying to say – that the Gita carries more weigh in spiritual arguments then the other smriti texts. If you disagree with that conclusion, then you need to provide your citations and justification for disagreement. Do not just accuse me of “talking about some mysterious other thing that is unknown to me “ I have given you my citation. If you disagree, then provide your justification. Do not criticize without defending your critique.


>>>
>>> As for the Brahmasutra, I do not have any knowledge of what weight it
>>> carries in the tradition.
>
>So you should find out such basic facts first before proceeding further.
>What you have just said is equivalent to "I don't know what weight washing
>hands carries in the medical tradition."



Your continued insults based on erroneous assumptions are not only unappreciated, they are in direct contradiction to the practice of Vedanta. If you were a doctor, you would know that such  statements are not equivalent. The purpose of this site is to learn and share views, right? Is anyone being killed by difference of opinion?  My above statement is in reference to what weight the Brahmasutra carries in comparison to other smriti texts in a spiritual debates. I gave my arguments for the Gita, and admitted that I do not have concrete arguments in support of the Brahmasutra.

Your statement “you should find out such basic facts first before proceding further” is just outright offensive and inconsistent with the spirit of exchanging ideas so that all members may learn.. The Brahmasutra is not as well known, as well read, or as well quoted the world over. It is not an entry level text for those studying or practicing Vedanta. It does carry much weight, and I was not saying that it does not. Washing hands is taught to grade school children and illiterate people also. So, if a medical doctor does not understand the value of washing hands, he is truly ignorant. However, [since you brought up the importance of tradition above], the Gita is quoted in many businesses in little posters and bumper stickers, etc. Almost every beginning Sanskrit student studies the Gita. Early in grade school in India, children learn verses from the Gita. Furthermore, Sri Krishna Himself states, that “Thus has been set forth by Me this most occult Shastra, O sinless Bharata prince! Knowing this, one becomes wise, he will have done all his duties.” [BG 18-20] There are other references also indicating that if one studies the Gita, one can put aside the need to study other scripture. While you may not agree with this, my point is simply that your statement [“before proceeding further”] is inconsistent with the message of the Gita.

Finally, I will say that in the spirit of discussion, one must offer one’s difference of opinion in a manner that is encouraging and respectful. If you think a person is offering opinions that are not based in fact, then please feel free to clarify. If you really want to encourage discussion, then first invite the person to further clarify and defend his/her perspective. However, your comments have more often than not been condescending, derogatory, and pedantic. Need I remind you the importance in the Vedantic tradition of sweet speech in cultivating one’s spirituality? Shall I quote precisely the section of the Gita wherein Sri Krishna specifically mentions sweet speech and compassion as requisites to attaining equanimity?

If you believe yourself to be a guru, having the final word on exegetical discussions, then this site is definitely not what I thought it was. To date, you have yet to quote the Vedas or the Upanishads or the Gita to counter any of my statements. If you wish to share your vast knowledge (and you do seem to have more references and citations readily at your disposal), then please do so in a more respectful and encouraging manner – read carefully before criticizing another person’s comments, and provide your own justification without insulting and belittling. If that is too much to ask, then this is not a discussion group at all, but a pulpit for one to give one’s own propaganda, using one’s vast textual knowledge to intimidate dissenters.

And that, my friends, is truly the beauty of the Hindu tradition
 Purity of heart has always been valued more than textual (i.e., being able to cite scripture) knowledge. Once the question was posed to my guru as to why Arjuna was chosen to receive the message of the Gita. The explanation is as follows: While Yudhistra (dharmaraja) was the most dharmic, and Bhima was the most physically strong, Arjuna had the purest heart.

Jai Sri Krishna,
Sanjay




_______________________________________

The journey of a thousand miles begins
with a single step.--Chinese Proverb

_______________________________________


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
--0-971748423-1047377674=:57563
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Namastubhyam. Pranam to all,  <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> <B><I>"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM>></I></B> wrote: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">[Was Re: Statements in our shastras]<BR>><BR>>On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Sanjay Verma wrote:<BR>><BR>>>> I was merely pointing out that some scriptures are<BR>>>> considered to have more weight than others.<BR>><BR>>Considered by whom? If you take a look at what ancient and contemporary<BR>>authors actually cite, you will get a different idea than if all you know<BR>>is some modern reformer types.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> Your continued insistence on reference to “reformer types” demonstrates that you have not understood my statements. Which “reformer type” have I quoted that you find so disagreeable? Are you discrediting Sri Krishna, Sri Chaithanya, Adi Shankaracharya and the Upanishads? Are their interpretations and comments not valid? Have I not quoted them more than anyone else? Please state directly which “reformer type” I have quoted whom you deem an invalid source. This whole discussion began with access to the Vedas for Shudras (i.e., my involvement in the discussion). For thousands of years sages have argued against limiting Vedic knowledge only to the dvijas. Are they all vagaries of their time to be discredited? In your own example below, Tulsidas translated the Ramayana from Sanskrit to a vernacular language so that all may have access to it, despite the strong disproval expressed by his fellow Brahmins. This is the point that I am repeatedly making: that despite shastraic statements for or against certain cultural practices, sages, saints, rishis, etc. have acted contrary to the shastras, and as such we should not take the shastraic injunctions so literally in our time. Even in the Mahabharata, the Pandavas violated the established rules of battle so that they may be victorious. Shastraic statements are guides for our social conduct: nothing more, and nothing less.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">>>> Clearly, the shruti texts<BR>>>> have the greatest weight among the scriptures.<BR><BR>>If you were to ask any random man in the street, they would probably say<BR>>the Ramacharitmanas or the Bhagavata had greater weight. (In fact there<BR>>is a story that when Tulsidasji was encountering controversy over the<BR>>propriety of translating the Ramayana into Hindi, the Ramacharitmanas was<BR>>literally weighed against the Vedas and found superior.)<BR>><BR>>the point is what consists "canon" is highly debatable and we can't have<BR>>a rational conversation about it unless we first decide what we're talking<BR>>about.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I already made this point. Interestingly, that part of my writing has been edited out. I did mention that as common people practice Hinduism, the epics, shastras, and Puranas serve to influence their behavior and social norms more. But are you suggesting that just because the common people are more familiar with and moved by the epics and Puranas, that those are the ultimate sources of authority in a spiritual debate? If there is difference of agreement, do not the religious adepts then refer to “higher” sources of authority for social norms and the proper path(s) to moksha as described in the Upanishads or Vedas? We are engaged in a debate. So, when I say that certain texts have more spiritual authority, I am not referring to any random man on the street. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>Since this list is about Shankaracharya and the Smarta sampradaya, let me<BR>>give you give you our views on the matter.<BR><BR>>Dharma is based on Shruti -- the Vedas which are apaurusheya and revealed<BR>>to the Rshis by methods we know not. Smrti -- those compositions of<BR>>various Gods and Rshis which explain the Vedas. These also include the<BR>>Puranas, Tantras etc. which provide the basis of most of contemporary<BR>>Hinduism. And Shishtachara -- the conduct of Acharyas, scholars and<BR>>elders.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Okay, fine. I place the burden back on you. Which “scholars, acharyas, and elders” are valid sources of authority and which are not? And if two groups of “scholars, acharyas, or elders” disagree, does not one then go directly to the Shruti texts? Or does one wait until the two groups enter a public debate to see whose arguments are more influential. On the issue of caste, and shastraic injunctions, I have quoted Sri Krishna, Adi Shankaracharya, Sri Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu, and Sri Sathya Sai Baba. Whom among this list would you discredit?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>It is the scant attention that seems to be paid to the third of these<BR>>which troubles me.<BR>><BR>>For instance you write:<BR>><BR>>>> As for eating meat, nowhere is it forbidden for all to eat meat -- only<BR>>>> for Brahmins. In fact, for a Kshatriya warrier, it is encouraged to eat<BR>>>> meat.<BR>><BR>>This totally factually wrong. There are many Brahmana castes in Northern<BR>>India who do eat fish or other forms of meat. for that matter there are<BR>>castes Kshatriya and others who are staunch vegetarians. People don't<BR>>consult a book to decide what their dietary habits are going to be, it is<BR>>something they just know as part of growing up in a particular tradition.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">You seem to have trouble comprehending the written word. I said that “nowhere is it forbidden” and that “it is encouraged” to eat or not eat meat. I made no reference to the common regional practices of Brahmins and Kshatriyas throughout India. Yet you say, “this is totally factually wrong.” Shall I waste the time to find the citations where different foods and activities are recommended for each caste? If you use this line of reasoning, then one can put forth examples of “Brahmins” who don’t live a life of teaching and studying. On this very list it was stated as “FACT” that a Brahmin who does not live a life of studying and teaching is just as low as a Shudra. So, while many Brahmins and Kshatriyas may eat or may not eat meat, I made no reference to such practices. The entire discussion was about what was sanctioned or prohibited in the scripture. Every guru I’ve ever talked to has said that for those on the spiritual path (e.g., meditation and yoga), eating meat is discouraged. But if it should so please you, give me a list of valid sources of authority, and when I have the time, I shall demonstrate to you that the food for Brahmins is different than the food for Kshatriyas.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>That's the pernicious thing about this reliance on books. It will cause,<BR>>God forbid, people to give up their real, historical traditions in favor<BR>>of some bogus fantasy version of the past. To understand why this is<BR>>happening you have to look at recent history. The Indian elite is<BR>>composed (though thankfully less so with each generation) of assimilated,<BR>>westernized people who are more familiar with the Bible than any shastra.<BR>>So when these people rediscover their roots they look around and they see<BR>>the Vedas or just the Upanishads, or the Gita etc. and think "Ah this is<BR>>the Hindu Bible." From that viewpoint how dare those evil castists<BR>>deprive anyone of access to the Hindu Bible? But the fact of the matter<BR>>is there is no Hindu Bible.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I have no comment on this. As I mentioned in my previous email, “reform” and syncretism are an ongoing process in Hinduism for thousands of years. There is no Hindu Bible, but there are texts that carry more authority. By whom? Apparently, that is the source of our disagreement.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>Here is a quote regarding the marriage ceremony:<BR>><BR>>"Once a time considered auspicious in the jyotisha shastra has been fixed,<BR>>the grooms parents should call their Kulaguru or a learned Purohit<BR>>(priest) to perform the Vivahasanskara. The wise priest who is not<BR>>already familiar with the practices of his yajamana (client) should hasten<BR>>to seek the advice of the elders of the family to learn their kulachara<BR>>(family traditions.) For a marriage that is made without respect for the<BR>>wishes of the Pitrs (ancestors) becomes barren and Hell is the abode of<BR>>that foolish priest who disregards the age-old practices of the family."<BR>><BR>>This is from Naimittikakarmaprakasha of Shri Nathuram Sharma who was<BR>>the dean of the astikas in Gujarat in the early 20th century. And such<BR>>sentiments are hardly new. Recently off the list I was asked a question<BR>>about the Mundan sanskara which is widely practiced amongst all strata of<BR>>society. It has its basis in the Vedas but this is what the<BR>>Paraskaragrhyasutra which is a Vedanga which explains sanskaras and other<BR>>rituals for the Shuklayajurveda has to say on the subject.<BR>><BR>>sAMvatsarikasya chuDAkaraNaM | trtIye vApratihate | yathAmangalaM sarveShAm |<BR>><BR>>Chudakarana (another name for Mundan) should be done at 1 year. Or 3<BR>>years. Or whenever it is auspicious.<BR>><BR>>"whenever it is auspicious" is interpreted as "acording to the family<BR>>custom" So as far as Dharma is concerned, if the custom in a particular<BR>>family or caste is to do Mundan at 5 years, then it doesn't matter what<BR>>the text of the Vedas says, 5 years is the correct date.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">If you are placing such importance on family tradition now, then you are providing the very arguments with which I began. It doesn’t matter what the shastras say regarding caste distinction. If a particular family or community practices no such distinction, then that should suffice.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>>> Since you brought it up,<BR>>>> I have also read (can't remember the citation at present) that the<BR>>>> greatest authority for wisdom is one's own experience. One should never<BR>>>> accept something which does not correspond to one's exerience. The<BR>>>> emphasis in Hiduism, especially Vedanta, has been "experience" (i.e, to<BR>>>> practice cultivating that perception of the oneness of the universe).<BR>><BR>>You yourself gave a rejoinder to this.<BR>><BR>>>> I suspect that one can find just about anything in scripture to justify<BR>>>> one's own attitude to these issues.<BR>><BR>>This is precisely why we rely on logic, grammar, history etc. and not<BR>>experience or attitudes.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">My point exactly, However, you seem to be very biased in accepted sources of authority that do not agree with your tradition as it has been given to you. Logic and history<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>have shown over and over that caste distinction in reference to access to Vedic knowledge do not have a place in our society now – not by “reformer types” but by sages. Such segregation has been challenged for thousands of years. Do you not remember the scene in the Mahabharata in which Sri Krishna is insulted at Yudhishtra’s ceremony for being but a cowherd at a royal assemblage? If you do not accept Sri Krishna’s arguments against such social segregation, then I’m not sure which “elders, scholars, and acharyas” you do accept. I also sent on this website the story of “Chaithanya and the Outcaste” as told by Sri Sathya Sai Baba. Do you discredit his authority to interpret our Hindu tradition also? If so, then it seems you only accept those who agree with you already, and the whole debate is futile. Perhaps it would be better for future postings on this site if you would in advance provide members with a list of valid sources of authority when engaging in a debate. But then, what debate would there be in preaching to the choir?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>>> Once again, the point is not what is "infallible", but which carries<BR>>>> more weight. If something is found objectionable in a shastra, one<BR>>>> should be able to use one's own intellect, with reference to shruti<BR>>>> texts, to completely disregard any objectionable statements. I do not<BR>>>> have any suggestions about what one should do if one finds something<BR>>>> objetionable in a shruti text... The Upanishads are considered shruti,<BR>>>> right?<BR>><BR>>Yes.<BR>><BR>>>> Many statements in one ostensibly contradict statements in<BR>>>> another. Paradox is inherent in the shruti texts, precisely because the<BR>>>> subject is too complex for our most uncultivated minds (as most human<BR>>>> beings are) to comprehend.<BR>>>><BR>><BR>>Incidently, our acharyas reject this view. The Vedas consist of language<BR>>which can be understood. Panini gives the rules for the Vedic language as<BR>>well as regular Sanskrit.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Well, some acharyas reject this view, and others do not. Maharishi Mahesh, student of the Shankaracharya of one of the Northern Maths, states that even the Gita is beyond the comprehension of most human beings due to their nescience. Or, shall I discredit his opinion because he is not on your list of “valid authorities”? Again, if you read my statement carefully, I said “too complex for most”. I did not say that it cannot be understood, but that it can be understood by only a few. However, if you do not like my view, I refer you to<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">“Just one man among thousands strives to win it; among those who know and strive, only one comes to know Me in truth.” [BG 7:3]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I used the word “paradox” in the above statement to which you objected. If you look at the word paradox, it literally means “a seemingly self-contradictory statement that still makes sense”. Just on this discussion group today there was discussion of Shiva, Vishnu, Narayana, and Agni. Is it not a paradox that in one place one deity is deemed supreme and in another place another deity is deemed supreme. I myself pointed out that such paradoxes are only apparent when one looks at them piecemeal and not the totality. So, while you seem to be disagreeing with me, we are in agreement – that there is a comprehensible whole. I merely added that for most “uncultured minds” the texts are too complex to be understood.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>>> Yes, this was brought to my attention last time also (i.e., that the<BR>>>> Gita is actually a smriti text). While that may be technically correct,<BR>>>> I don’t think such classification is appropriate in the Hindu tradition.<BR>><BR>>What is this Hindu tradition? It is the Hindu tradition that I (and many<BR>>others) know that calls the Gita a smrti. You are talking about some<BR>>mysterious other thing that is unknown to me. So why don't you define<BR>>that before proceeding further?<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I am not talking about any mysterious thing. I am observing that in practice, through the centuries, more sages demonstrate their spiritual authority by commenting on the Gita than any other single text. Is this not so? This is a common tool in academics to ascertain what a cultural tradition deems important. If many religious scholars throughout the tradition have commented on it, or derived their teaching from it, then it holds a de facto importance in that culture. Technically, it is smriti; I agreed with you on that. What I added, is that it has more weight, based on what I just explained in this paragraph. Furthermore, in the Gita itself, as agreed by Shankaracharya with reference to Chapter 15, it states:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">[I quote a translation of Adi Shankaracharya’s commentary]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">“Though the entire Gita is held to be a shastra, this chapter by itself is here styled shastra by way of eulogy. This is clear from the context, because the import of the entire Gita has been briefly set forth here. Not only the import of the Gita, but also the entire import of the Veda has been given here in summary. Who knows it, is the knower of the Vedas.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Are not Sri Krishna and Adi Shankaracharya elevating the Gita to a high level? That is all that I’ve been trying to say – that the Gita carries more weigh in spiritual arguments then the other smriti texts. If you disagree with that conclusion, then you need to provide your citations and justification for disagreement. Do not just accuse me of “talking about some mysterious other thing that is unknown to me “ I have given you my citation. If you disagree, then provide your justification. Do not criticize without defending your critique.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>>><BR>>>> As for the Brahmasutra, I do not have any knowledge of what weight it<BR>>>> carries in the tradition.<BR>><BR>>So you should find out such basic facts first before proceeding further.<BR>>What you have just said is equivalent to "I don't know what weight washing<BR>>hands carries in the medical tradition."<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Your continued insults based on erroneous assumptions are not only unappreciated, they are in direct contradiction to the practice of Vedanta. If you were a doctor, you would know that such<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>statements are not equivalent. The purpose of this site is to learn and share views, right? Is anyone being killed by difference of opinion?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>My above statement is in reference to what weight the Brahmasutra carries in comparison to other smriti texts in a spiritual debates. I gave my arguments for the Gita, and admitted that I do not have concrete arguments in support of the Brahmasutra.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Your statement “you should find out such basic facts first before proceding further” is just outright offensive and inconsistent with the spirit of exchanging ideas so that all members may learn.. The Brahmasutra is not <U>as well known</U>, <U>as well read</U>, or <U>as well quoted</U> the world over. It is not an entry level text for those studying or practicing Vedanta. It does carry much weight, and I was not saying that it does not. Washing hands is taught to grade school children and illiterate people also. So, if a medical doctor does not understand the value of washing hands, he is truly ignorant. However, [since you brought up the importance of tradition above], the Gita is quoted in many businesses in little posters and bumper stickers, etc. Almost every beginning Sanskrit student studies the Gita. Early in grade school in India, children learn verses from the Gita. Furthermore, Sri Krishna Himself states, that “Thus has been set forth by Me this most occult Shastra, O sinless Bharata prince! Knowing this, one becomes wise, he will have done all his duties.” [BG 18-20] There are other references also indicating that if one studies the Gita, one can put aside the need to study other scripture. While you may not agree with this, my point is simply that your statement [“before proceeding further”] is inconsistent with the message of the Gita.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Finally, I will say that in the spirit of discussion, one must offer one’s difference of opinion in a manner that is encouraging and respectful. If you think a person is offering opinions that are not based in fact, then please feel free to clarify. If you really want to encourage discussion, then first invite the person to further clarify and defend his/her perspective. However, your comments have more often than not been condescending, derogatory, and pedantic. Need I remind you the importance in the Vedantic tradition of sweet speech in cultivating one’s spirituality? Shall I quote precisely the section of the Gita wherein Sri Krishna specifically mentions sweet speech and compassion as requisites to attaining equanimity? <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">If you believe yourself to be a guru, having the final word on exegetical discussions, then this site is definitely not what I thought it was. To date, you have yet to quote the Vedas or the Upanishads or the Gita to counter any of my statements. If you wish to share your vast knowledge (and you do seem to have more references and citations readily at your disposal), then please do so in a more respectful and encouraging manner – read carefully before criticizing another person’s comments, and provide your own justification without insulting and belittling. If that is too much to ask, then this is not a discussion group at all, but a pulpit for one to give one’s own propaganda, using one’s vast textual knowledge to intimidate dissenters.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">And that, my friends, is truly the beauty of the Hindu tradition
 Purity of heart has always been valued more than textual (i.e., being able to cite scripture) knowledge. Once the question was posed to my guru as to why Arjuna was chosen to receive the message of the Gita. The explanation is as follows: While Yudhistra (dharmaraja) was the most dharmic, and Bhima was the most physically strong, Arjuna had the purest heart.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Jai Sri Krishna,<BR>Sanjay<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P> </P><BR><BR>_______________________________________<br><br>The journey of a thousand miles begins<br>with a single step.--Chinese Proverb<br><br>_______________________________________<p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/wh3/prod/">Yahoo! Web Hosting</a> - establish your business online
--0-971748423-1047377674=:57563--