To Krishnas [ About interpolation ]

[shvu 1]

 

Rather than discussing an irrelevant topic on the original thread, I am posting this on a new one.

 

Karthik said :

 

I am not questioning their divine origin. But with so much interpolation, nobody is going to argue that they are in the same form as they were given originally. So, still puranas are out.

 

To which Krishnas replies :

 

Even many shrutis have differences in word order from one shakha to another. Yet you accept shrutis as evidence.

 

Interpolation is just an argument invented by people who want to brush aside inconvenient evidence. For any given pramaana for which you cry "interpolation," you are unable to prove that interpolation has occurred, or even show a conflict with shruti...

Krishnas,

 

What is your point? Are you of the opinion that the Puraanaas are free of interpolation?

 

Thanks

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 07-16-2002).]

[krishna_s 0]

Originally posted by shvu:

What is your point? Are you of the opinion that the Puraanaas are free of interpolation?

 

 

My point is that calling something "interpolation" merely because it does not suit him is hardly good scholarship.

 

[Avinash 0]

My point is that calling something "interpolation" merely because it does not suit him is hardly good scholarship.

 

Accepted. But please tell if you consider Puranas free of interpolation.

 

 

[krishna_s 0]

Originally posted by Avinash:

My point is that calling something "interpolation" merely because it does not suit him is hardly good scholarship.

 

Accepted. But please tell if you consider Puranas free of interpolation.

 

 

 

I wasn't around the day they were compiled, so I'm sure any answer I give would be just an unsubstantiated opinion.

 

I'm willing to entertain each suspected case of "interpolation" on a case-by-case basis. As I said before, calling it interpolation because it comes from smriti and happens to contradict one's own philosophy is not very convincing scholarship. I think there have to be some standards by which one can raise a reasonable suspicion that a passage is interpolated. For example:

 

1) If the smriti has a statement which is in conflict with other shaastras, and the conflict is irreconciable.

 

2) If the smriti has multiple recensions, and a given text is present in only one of them (and the other ones are not known to be adulterated)

 

Note that these are just some proposed critieria to raise the suspicion that something could be interpolated. There could be other criteria as well, and also I am not suggesting that these are absolute, just guidelines.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

------------------

Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List

www.achintya.org

 

[xxvvii 0]

I don't think interpolation to be a serious problem. If a work has been interpolated, it has more writes. Sometime the interpolated parts are valuable, too.

[krishna_s 0]

Originally posted by xxvvii:

I don't think interpolation to be a serious problem. If a work has been interpolated, it has more writes. Sometime the interpolated parts are valuable, too.

From an academic standpoint, study of interpolated texts can reveal something about the historical development of Indian society and philosophical schools.

 

However, from the standpoint of discussion, the use of Vedic pramaanas depends on their being apaurusheya. If a particular text has suffered from interpolations, then those interpolations are not apaurusheya by definition. This is not to say that the whole text need be rejected, but at least those statements which are known to be interpolated cannot be given equal weight as the rest of the text, or even as shruti.

 

Traditionally, Vedaantists have held the authority of the shruti as the basis by which to determine if something is genuine or interpolated. This seems a reasonable approach, but it is not without its problems. For example:

 

1) These days what we call shruti is not received by us in the oral tradition, so it also becomes smriti for us, technically speaking.

 

2) Puraanas and Itihaasas were compiled to help one understand the shrutis, so if there seems to be a conflict, how does one know that his understanding of the shruti isn't in error?

 

3) Some "shrutis" have also suffered from interpolation. The Mundaka Upanishad, if memory serves, has a verse which some believe to actually belong to the commentary of Gaudapada, although Madhva takes it as being part of the original.

 

4) Depending on which estimates you believe, there is less than 3-5% of the Vedas currently extant, and of that, most scholars of the shruti know only a fraction. If one is therefore going to use an understanding based on such a small cross-section of shruti to reject something that is smriti, it brings up the question of whether or not his understanding is complete. One cannot say for example, "there is no shruti which supports this smriti." One has to specifically show a conflict between smriti and a known shruti.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

[xxvvii 0]

Interpolation brought at least an advantage - less att. to shrutis. You treat it as a problem because of the 2m2 of authoritative & inauthoritative. But how can you reach "Krishnas" if you can't open your mind & surpass scriptures?

 

You shouldn't suspect Bg.'s authority at least. I can accept all contents of it.

 

[shvu 1]

 

3) Some "shrutis" have also suffered from interpolation. The Mundaka Upanishad, if memory serves, has a verse which some believe to actually belong to the commentary of Gaudapada, although Madhva takes it as being part of the original

It is the MaanDuukya Upanishad. The first prakarana of Gaudapaada's kaarikaas is the aagama prakarana which contains the verses of the MaanDuukya and 29 kaarikaas. For some reason, tattvavaada treats the first 27 kaarikaas as Shruti.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[krishna_s 0]

Originally posted by shvu:

It is the MaanDuukya Upanishad. The first prakarana of Gaudapaada's kaarikaas is the

 

 

Quite right, thanks for the correction.

 

- K

 

 

[krishna_s 0]

Originally posted by xxvvii:

Interpolation brought at least an advantage - less att. to shrutis.

No, interpolation is traditionally attributed to smritis, not shrutis, and has historically been used to divert attention away from smritis (whether good or bad).

 

You treat it as a problem because of the 2m2 of authoritative & inauthoritative.

If I could figure out what it is you are saying here, I'm sure I would have something to say in response.

 

But how can you reach "Krishnas" if you can't open your mind & surpass scriptures?

 

It is indeed dangerous to think that one is prepared to "surpass" the scriptures when he doesn't even have the strength of devotion to follow the scriptural injunctions.

 

In any case, here we are discussing what is or is not valid evidence in intersampradaaya debate.

 

You shouldn't suspect Bg.'s authority at least. I can accept all contents of it.

Bhagavad-giitaa's authority isn't seriously questioned by anyone as far as I know. But on a more relevant note, the fact that you accept something does not make it acceptable, any more than having faith in something makes it correct. Vedas do not depend on anything for their authority.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

 

 

------------------

Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List

www.achintya.org

 

[Bhaktavasya 0]

 

How is it 'dangerous' to 'surpass the scriptures' if we are encouraged to follow in the footsteps of the Gopis who left everything to follow Krishna, even leaving their so-called husbands if need be to go to Him. If there are specific injunctions in the Vedas that interupt our meditation and service to Krishna, then that injunction can be rejected. Krishna himself says that the Vedas are meant for those who are under the influence of the 3 modes of nature; "Rise above the modes, O Arjuna, be transcendental to all of them!" A tough call, no doubt, but it's what we all have to come to eventually.

The Vedas are there to guide and teach, not to control to the letter.

 

 

[Tarun 6]

Yes. Vedas r considered Mother. Generally we follow Mother, but not only her exclusively forever.

[Guest guest]

sabda brahman is never lost. If one believes the Vedas are true, then the sabda is still present. And it can be heard by those who are qualified. In fact, the Vedas are revealed by the sages. So how do we know they are right ? It is based on faith in the sages. But instead of being a blind faith, it is a faith based on questioning. As shruti and smrti are both revealed by the sages, they are both valid as pramana.

 

The only problem with smrti is that it has a lot of interpolation. But it does not mean we reject it. On the other hand, we need to interpret the statements in the light of avaialable smrti. The same applies to the statements of the acharyas. The good thing for us is that Vedanta Sutras have no known interpolation. So the gist of Vedic knowledge is not lost.

 

It would be good to protect the available shruti by supporting good brahmins who are willing to live a simple life dedicated to veda pAryAyanam. If the Vedas can be given to people of all castes, then the chance of protecting them would be more.But beyond all this there is the influence of time. If the Vedas are to be lost in this age, we will never have the power to protect it.

 

We can take comfort in the fact that the Lord is protecting it always and will bring it back when He wills.